A protocol for whole-exome sequencing in newborns with congenital deafness: a prospective population-based cohort

Introduction: The aetiology of congenital hearing loss is heterogeneous, and in many infants a genetic cause is suspected. Parents face a diagnostic odyssey when searching for a cause of their infant’s hearing loss. Through the Melbourne Genomics Health Alliance, a prospective cohort of infants will be offered whole-exome sequencing (WES) with targeted analysis in conjunction with chromosome microarray to determine the genetic causes of congenital hearing loss. Parents will also be offered the opportunity to receive additional results from their infant’s WES. Methods: Eligible infants will be identified through the Victorian Infant Hearing Screening Program and offered an appointment in a paediatrician-run clinic, a genetics assessment and enrolment in the Victorian Childhood Hearing Impairment Longitudinal Databank. If parents consent to WES, genes causing deafness will be analysed and they can choose to obtain additional findings. For the additional results component, a modified laboratory protocol has been designed for reporting of results in the absence of a relevant phenotype. Parents’ experience of being offered WES will be evaluated using surveys. Discussion This project will provide descriptive analysis of the genetic aetiology of congenital hearing loss in this cohort and may provide data on genotype–phenotype correlations. Additionally, choices regarding additional findings will be analysed. Participants will represent a diverse cross section of the population, increasing the ability to generalise results beyond the study group. Evaluation surveys will allow analysis of preferences around counselling, usefulness of a decision aid and adequacy of information provision

Utility of clinical comprehensive genomic characterization for diagnostic categorization in patients presenting with hypocellular bone marrow failure syndromes

Bone marrow failure (BMF) related to hypoplasia of hematopoietic elements in the bone marrow is a heterogeneous clinical entity with a broad differential diagnosis including both inherited and acquired causes. Accurate diagnostic categorization is critical to optimal patient care and detection of genomic variants in these patients may provide this important diagnostic and prognostic information. We performed real-time, accredited (ISO15189) comprehensive genomic characterization including targeted sequencing and whole exome sequencing in 115 patients with BMF syndrome (median age 24 years, range 3 months - 81 years). In patients with clinical diagnoses of inherited BMF syndromes, acquired BMF syndromes or clinically unclassifiable BMF we detected variants in 52% (12/23), 53% (25/47) and 56% (25/45) respectively. Genomic characterization resulted in a change of diagnosis in 30/115 (26%) including the identification of germline causes for 3/47 and 16/45 cases with pre-test diagnoses of acquired and clinically unclassifiable BMF respectively. The observed clinical impact of accurate diagnostic categorization included choice to perform allogeneic stem cell transplantation, disease-specific targeted treatments, identification of at-risk family members and influence of sibling allogeneic stem cell donor choice. Multiple novel pathogenic variants and copy number changes were identified in our cohort including in TERT, FANCA, RPS7 and SAMD9. Whole exome sequence analysis facilitated the identification of variants in two genes not typically associated with a primary clinical manifestation of BMF but also demonstrated reduced sensitivity for detecting low level acquired variants. In conclusion, genomic characterization can improve diagnostic categorization of patients presenting with hypoplastic BMF syndromes and should be routinely performed in this group of patients

Two-step offer and return of multiple types of additional genomic findings to families after ultrarapid trio genomic testing in the acute care setting: a study protocol

Introduction As routine genomic testing expands, so too does the opportunity to look for additional health information unrelated to the original reason for testing, termed additional findings (AF). Analysis for many different types of AF may be available, particularly to families undergoing trio genomic testing. The optimal model for service delivery remains to be determined, especially when the original test occurs in the acute care setting.Methods and analysis Families enrolled in a national study providing ultrarapid genomic testing to critically ill children will be offered analysis for three types of AF on their stored genomic data: paediatric-onset conditions in the child, adult-onset conditions in each parent and reproductive carrier screening for the parents as a couple. The offer will be made 3–6 months after diagnostic testing. Parents will have access to a modified version of the Genetics Adviser web-based decision support tool before attending a genetic counselling appointment to discuss consent for AF. Parental experiences will be evaluated using qualitative and quantitative methods on data collected through surveys, appointment recordings and interviews at multiple time points. Evaluation will focus on parental preferences, uptake, decision support use and understanding of AF. Genetic health professionals’ perspectives on acceptability and feasibility of AF will also be captured through surveys and interviews.Ethics and dissemination This project received ethics approval from the Melbourne Health Human Research Ethics Committee as part of the Australian Genomics Health Alliance protocol: HREC/16/MH/251. Findings will be disseminated through peer-review journal articles and at conferences nationally and internationally

Evaluating barriers to uptake of comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) in advanced cancer patients (pts)

Background: Despite increasing evidence of benefit supporting CGP in personalizing cancer therapy, its widespread uptake remains limited. Barriers include low patient understanding, unmet patient expectations related to low utility, clinician concerns over cost-effectiveness, perceived value, and discomfort in management of complex genomic results. Methods: This prospective cross-institutional demonstration study was designed to evaluate implementation of CGP in the care of adult and paediatric advanced cancer pts, incorporating pt reported outcomes (PROMs), discrete choice experiment (DCE), ongoing process optimization and clinician evaluations. DNA sequencing of FFPE tumor and matched blood was completed with CGP (PMCC Comprehensive Cancer Panel; 391 genes) via central laboratory. A tumor board reported results weekly with emphasis on therapeutic relevance. Oncologists performed consent and results delivery. Pts completed pre-and post-test surveys, including validated and study-specific questions, DCE and if eligible, semi-structured interviews. Qualitative interviews were undertaken with study clinicians and laboratory staff to evaluate processes. Results: 86% (315) of 365 enrolled pts had successful CGP; of these 63% (199) had relevant therapeutic, diagnostic or germline results. 50 (16%) had treatment change at 6m, 49 (16%) had germline mutations. 293 (88% of adult pts) completed PROMs. 17 of 19 clinicians/laboratory staff approached consented to an interview. At consent pts cited multifaceted value in testing, showed good understanding of basic concepts, but most (69%) overestimated the likelihood of result-led change. Post-test pts remained consistently satisfied with accessing CGP; valuing research contribution, taking opportunities and information for family. 21% struggled with understanding results but there were low levels of decisional regret following participation (89% had nil/mild regret). Pt-elicited preferences (via DCE) indicated priority for high rates of clinical utility and timeliness. Clinicians sited collaboration and communication as critical to delivery of CGP. Conclusions: Pts undergoing CGP are generally satisfied, and derive value on its use beyond potential therapeutic benefit. Our results suggest that to improve test utility and delivery of CGP with value to pts and investing institution, focus must be placed on addressing the additional barriers to its wider implications including efforts to improve process efficiencies, clinician genomic literacy and decision-making support