Carolyn Sue Richards

Recommendations from the EGAPP Working Group: genetic testing strategies in newly diagnosed individuals with colorectal cancer aimed at reducing morbidity and mortality from Lynch syndrome in relatives

Summary of Recommendations: The Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) Working Group found sufficient evidence to recommend offering genetic testing for Lynch syndrome to individuals with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer to reduce morbidity and mortality in relatives. We found insufficient evidence to recommend a specific genetic testing strategy among the several examined.Rationale: Genetic testing to detect Lynch syndrome in individuals with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer (CRC) is proposed as a strategy to reduce CRC morbidity and mortality in their relatives (see Clinical Considerations section for definition of Lynch syndrome). The EGAPP Working Group (EWG) constructed a chain of evidence that linked genetic testing for Lynch syndrome in patients with newly diagnosed CRC with improved health outcomes in their relatives. We found that assessing patients who have newly diagnosed CRC with a series of genetic tests could lead to the identification of Lynch syndrome. Relatives of patients with Lynch syndrome could then be offered genetic testing, and, where indicated, colorectal, and possibly endometrial, cancer surveillance, with the expectation of improved health outcome. The EWG concluded that there is moderate certainty that such a testing strategy would provide moderate population benefit.Analytic Validity: The EWG found adequate evidence to conclude that the analytic sensitivity and specificity for preliminary and diagnostic tests were high.Clinical Validity: After accounting for the specific technologies and numbers of markers used, the EWG found at least adequate evidence to describe the clinical sensitivity and specificity for three preliminary tests, and for four selected testing strategies. These measures of clinical validity varied with each test and each strategy (see Clinical Considerations section).Clinical Utility: The EWG found adequate evidence for testing uptake rates, adherence to recommended surveillance activities, number of relatives approachable, harms associated with additional follow-up, and effectiveness of routine colonoscopy. This chain of evidence supported the use of genetic testing strategies to reduce morbidity/mortality in relatives with Lynch syndrome. Several genetic testing strategies were potentially effective, but none was clearly superior. The evidence for or against effectiveness of identifying mismatch repair (MMR) gene mutations in reducing endometrial cancer morbidity or mortality was inadequate.Contextual Issues: CRC is a common disease responsible for an estimated 52,000 deaths in the United States in 2007. In about 3% of newly diagnosed CRC, the underlying cause is a mutation in a MMR gene (Lynch syndrome) that can be reliably identified with existing laboratory tests. Relatives inheriting the mutation have a high (about 45% by age 70) risk of developing CRC. Evidence suggests these relatives will often accept testing and increased surveillance.

Laboratory standards and guidelines for population- based cystic fibrosis carrier screening

In 1997, the National Institutes of Health convened a Consensus Development Conference on Cystic Fibrosis (CF).1 The Consensus Conference recommended that genetic screening for CF mutations should be offered to identify carriers among adults with a positive family history of CF, partners of individuals with CF, couples currently planning a pregnancy, and couples seeking prenatal care. A second NIH-sponsored conference that focused on the implementation of the Consensus Conference recommendations was held in 1998.2 Shortly thereafter, the American College of Medical Genetics (ACMG) and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), in conjunction with the National Human Genome Research Institute, formed a Steering Committee to coordinate the implementation of population-based CF carrier screening and to develop “Clinical and Laboratory Provider Guidelines” for (1) provider education; (2) laboratory testing, interpretation, and genetic counseling; and (3) patient education and informed consent. The ACMG charged the Accreditation of Genetic Services Committee, chaired by Dr. Robert Desnick, to establish a Subcommittee on Cystic Fibrosis Carrier Screening (henceforth the “Committee”) to develop recommendations and guidelines for optimal laboratory testing, interpretation, and counseling. The Subcommittee, cochaired by Drs. Wayne Grody and Garry Cutting, met twice yearly since October 1998. The issues considered by the Committee included (1) the target population to be screened (universal vs. limited to certain high-risk ethnic groups); (2) the screening model to be used (couple-based vs. sequential); (3) criteria for and selection of the standard mutation testing panel; (4) potential value and use of an extended testing panel with additional mutations; (5) whether to test for mutations and variants associated with mild or nonclassical phenotypes (such as congenital bilateral absence of the vas deferens); (6) test interpretation, reporting, and genetic counseling; and (7) laboratory quality assurance. The recommendations detailed here have been incorporated into a joint ACMG/ACOG/NIH Steering Committee document entitled “Preconceptual and Prenatal Carrier Screening for Cystic Fibrosis” which will be widely distributed. This document also will include guidelines for providers, patient education, and informed consent. Patient education materials will include two pamphlets, entitled “Cystic Fibrosis Carrier Testing. . . The Decision is Yours” and “Cystic Fibrosis Testing: What Happens if Both My Partner and I are Carriers?” It is important to note that these guidelines were prepared for population CF carrier screening and that different testing and counseling strategies would be employed for the identification of the mutation(s) in patients diagnosed with CF or in relatives of CF patients. Such diagnostic and prenatal mutation analyses should be referred to a genetics center for appropriate testing and counseling.

Recommendations from the EGAPP Working Group: testing for cytochrome P450 polymorphisms in adults with nonpsychotic depression treated with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors

This statement summarizes the Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) Working Group recommendations regarding CYP450 genetic testing in adult patients beginning treatment with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), and the supporting scientific evidence. EGAPP is a project developed by the National Office of Public Health Genomics at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to support a rigorous, evidence-based process for evaluating genetic tests and other genomic applications that are in transition from research to clinical and public health practice in the United States. A key goal of the EGAPP Working Group is to develop conclusions and recommendations regarding clinical genomic applications and to establish clear linkage to the supporting scientific evidence. The Working Group members are nonfederal experts in genetics, laboratory medicine, and clinical epidemiology convened to establish methods and processes; set priorities for review topics; participate in technical expert panels for commissioned evidence reviews; publish recommendations; and provide guidance and feedback on other project activities.Summary of Recommendation The EGAPP Working Group found insufficient evidence to support a recommendation for or against use of CYP450 testing in adults beginning SSRI treatment for non-psychotic depression. In the absence of supporting evidence, and with consideration of other contextual issues, EGAPP discourages use of CYP450 testing for patients beginning SSRI treatment until further clinical trials are completed.Rationale: The EGAPP Working Group found no evidence linking testing for CYP450 to clinical outcomes in adults treated with SSRIs. While some studies of a single SSRI dose in healthy patients report an association between genotypic CYP450 drug metabolizer status and circulating SSRI levels, this association was not supported by studies of patients receiving ongoing SSRI treatment. Further, CYP450 genotypes are not consistently associated with the patient outcomes of interest, including clinical response to SSRI treatment or adverse events as a result of treatment. No evidence was available showing that the results of CYP450 testing influenced SSRI choice or dose and improved patient outcomes, or was useful in medical, personal, or public health decision-making. In the absence of evidence supporting clinical utility, it is not known if potential benefits from CYP450 testing will outweigh potential harms. Potential harms may include increased cost without impact on clinical decision making or improvement in patient outcomes, less effective treatment with SSRI drugs, or inappropriate use of genotype information in the management of other drugs metabolized by CYP450 enzymes.

Performance of ACMG-AMP Variant-Interpretation Guidelines among Nine Laboratories in the Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research Consortium

Evaluating the pathogenicity of a variant is challenging given the plethora of types of genetic evidence that laboratories consider. Deciding how to weigh each type of evidence is difficult, and standards have been needed. In 2015, the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) and the Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP) published guidelines for the assessment of variants in genes associated with Mendelian diseases. Nine molecular diagnostic laboratories involved in the Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) consortium piloted these guidelines on 99 variants spanning all categories (pathogenic, likely pathogenic, uncertain significance, likely benign, and benign). Nine variants were distributed to all laboratories, and the remaining 90 were evaluated by three laboratories. The laboratories classified each variant by using both the laboratorys own method and the ACMG-AMP criteria. The agreement between the two methods used within laboratories was high (K-alpha = 0.91) with 79% concordance. However, there was only 34% concordance for either classification system across laboratories. After consensus discussions and detailed review of the ACMG-AMP criteria, concordance increased to 71%. Causes of initial discordance in ACMG-AMP classifications were identified, and recommendations on clarification and increased specification of the ACMG-AMP criteria were made. In summary, although an initial pilot of the ACMG-AMP guidelines did not lead to increased concordance in variant interpretation, comparing variant interpretations to identify differences and having a common framework to facilitate resolution of those differences were beneficial for improving agreement, allowing iterative movement toward increased reporting consistency for variants in genes associated with monogenic disease.

Recommendations from the EGAPP Working Group: Can tumor gene expression profiling improve outcomes in patients with breast cancer?

Summary of Recommendations: The EGAPP Working Group (EWG) found insufficient evidence to make a recommendation for or against the use of tumor gene expression profiles to improve outcomes in defined populations of women with breast cancer. For one test, the EWG found preliminary evidence of potential benefit of testing results to some women who face decisions about treatment options (reduced adverse events due to low risk women avoiding chemotherapy), but could not rule out the potential for harm for others (breast cancer recurrence that might have been prevented). The evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of the proposed uses of the tests. The EWG encourages further development and evaluation of these technologies.Rationale: The measurement of gene expression in breast tumor tissue is proposed as a way to estimate the risk of distant disease recurrence in order to provide additional information beyond current clinicopathological risk stratification and to influence decisions about treatment in order to improve health outcomes. Based on their review of the EGAPP-commissioned evidence report, Impact of Gene Expression Profiling Tests on Breast Cancer Outcomes1 and other data summaries, the EWG found no direct evidence linking tumor gene expression profiling of women with breast cancer to improved outcomes, and inadequate evidence to construct an evidence chain. However, further evaluation on the clinical utility of some tests and management algorithms, including well-designed randomized controlled trials, is warranted.Analytic Validity: Some data on technical performance of assays were identified for MammaPrint and Oncotype DX, though estimates of analytic sensitivity and specificity could not be made. Published performance data on the laboratory developed Quest H:I Test were limited. Overall, the EWG found the evidence to be inadequate.Clinical Validity: The EWG found adequate evidence regarding the association of the Oncotype DX Recurrence Score with disease recurrence and adequate evidence for response to chemotherapy. The EWG found adequate evidence to characterize the association of MammaPrint with future metastases, but inadequate evidence to assess the added value to standard risk stratification, and could not determine the population to which the test would best apply. The evidence was inadequate to characterize the clinical validity of the Quest H:I Test.Clinical Utility: The EWG found no evidence regarding the clinical utility of the MammaPrint and Quest H:I Ratio tests, and inadequate evidence regarding Oncotype DX. These technologies have potential for both benefit and harm.Contextual Issues: The EWG reviewed economic studies that used modeling to predict potential effects of using gene profiling, and judged the evidence inadequate.

Standards and Guidelines for CFTR Mutation Testing

One mission of the ACMG Laboratory Quality Assurance (QA) Committee is to develop standards and guidelines for clinical genetics laboratories, including cytogenetics, biochemical, and molecular genetics specialties. This document was developed under the auspices of the Molecular Subcommittee of the Laboratory QA Committee by the Cystic Fibrosis (CF) Working Group. It was placed on the “fast track” to address the preanalytical, analytical, and postanalytical quality assurance practices of laboratories currently providing testing for CF. Due to the anticipated impact of the ACMG recommendation statement endorsing carrier testing of reproductive couples, it was viewed that CF testing would increase in volume and that the number of laboratories offering CF testing would also likely increase. Therefore, this document was drafted with the premise of providing useful information gained by experienced laboratory directors who have provided such testing for many years. In many instances, “tips” are given. However, these guidelines are not to be interpreted as restrictive or the only approach but to provide a helpful guide. Certainly, appropriately trained and credentialed laboratory directors have flexibility to utilize various testing platforms and design testing strategies with considerable latitude. We felt that it was essential to include technique-specific guidelines of several current technologies commonly used in laboratories providing CF testing, since three of the four technologies discussed are available commercially and are widely utilized. We take the view that these technologies will change, and thus this document will change with future review.

Recommendations from the EGAPP working group: Can UCT1A1 genotyping reduce morbidity and mortality in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with irinotecan?

Summary of Recommendations: The Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) Working Group found that the evidence is currently insufficient to recommend for or against the routine use of UGT1A1 genotyping in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who are to be treated with irinotecan, with the intent of modifying the dose as a way to avoid adverse drug reactions (severe neutropenia).Rationale: The EGAPP Working Group (EWG) found no intervention trials showing that targeted dosing of irinotecan based on UGT1A1 genotyping could reduce the rates of two specific adverse drug events, severe (Grade 3–4) neutropenia or diarrhea. Observational studies indicate a significant association between UGT1A1 genotypes, particularly *28/*28 and *1/*28, and the occurrence of severe neutropenia. Observational studies also indicate a possible association between severe diarrhea and these UGT1A1 genotypes, but the association is not statistically significant. An additional finding was the suggestion that reducing irinotecan dose may result in patient harms due to diminished effectiveness of treatment in highest risk individuals (*28/*28 homozygotes), and that a higher dose might be warranted among individuals at lower risk of adverse drug events (*1/*1 and *1/*28 genotypes). This review did not consider higher risk patients (e.g., having previous adverse reactions to irinotecan or additional risk factors for neutropenia).Analytic Validity: The EWG found adequate evidence to conclude that analytic sensitivity and specificity were high for the commonly tested alleles, but evidence was inadequate for rarer alleles.Clinical Validity: The EWG found adequate evidence of a significant association between UGT1A1 genotype and the incidence of severe neutropenia at standard doses of irinotecan. The EWG found adequate evidence of a possible association between genotype and severe diarrhea, but the effect was smaller and not statistically significant. The EWG found adequate evidence of a significantly higher rate of tumor response to standard irinotecan dosing among individuals with the genotype at highest risk of adverse drug events (*28/*28).Clinical Utility: The EWG found no evidence to support clinical utility in the proposed clinical scenario. Preliminary modeling suggests that, even if targeted dosing were to be highly effective, it is not clear that benefits (reduced adverse drug events) outweigh harms (unresponsive tumors).Contextual Issues: Addressing patient preferences regarding risk of side effects and quality of life, versus aggressive treatment to potentially improve effectiveness, is expected practice. In addition, a recent study reported that risk for neutropenia was lower at lower irinotecan doses. For treatment regimens utilizing lower irinotecan doses, UGT1A1 genotype may not be a useful indicator of risk for adverse drug events. Further rigorous evaluation of UGT1A1 genotyping using current and promising irinotecan treatment protocols is warranted.

Genetics: The human variome project

An ambitious plan to collect, curate, and make accessible information on genetic variations affecting human health is beginning to be realized.

Developing a sustainable process to provide quality control materials for genetic testing

Purpose: To provide a summary of the outcomes of two working conferences organized by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), to develop recommendations for practical, sustainable mechanisms to make quality control (QC) materials available to the genetic testing community.Methods: Participants were selected to include experts in genetic testing and molecular diagnostics from professional organizations, government agencies, industry, laboratories, academic institutions, cell repositories, and proficiency testing (PT)/external Quality Assessment (EQA) programs. Current efforts to develop QC materials for genetic tests were reviewed; key issues and areas of need were identified; and workgroups were formed to address each area of need and to formulate recommendations and next steps.Results: Recommendations were developed toward establishing a sustainable process to improve the availability of appropriate QC materials for genetic testing, with an emphasis on molecular genetic testing as an initial step.Conclusions: Improving the availability of appropriate QC materials is of critical importance for assuring the quality of genetic testing, enhancing performance evaluation and PT/EQA programs, and facilitating new test development. To meet the needs of the rapidly expanding capacity of genetic testing in clinical and public health settings, a comprehensive, coordinated program should be developed. A Genetic Testing Quality Control Materials Program has therefore been established by CDC in March 2005 to serve these needs.

Recommendations from the EGAPP Working Group: Can testing of tumor tissue for mutations in EGFR pathway downstream effector genes in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer improve health outcomes by guiding decisions regarding anti-EGFR therapy?

Summary of recommendations: The Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) Working Group (EWG) found that, for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) who are being considered for treatment with cetuximab or panitumumab, there is convincing evidence to recommend clinical use of KRAS mutation analysis to determine which patients are KRAS mutation positive and therefore unlikely to benefit from these agents before initiation of therapy. The level of certainty of the evidence was deemed high, and the magnitude of net health benefit from avoiding potentially ineffective and harmful treatment, along with promoting more immediate access to what could be the next most effective treatment, is at least moderate.The EWG found insufficient evidence to recommend for or against BRAF V600E testing for the same clinical scenario. The level of certainty for BRAF V600E testing to guide antiepidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) therapy was deemed low. The EWG encourages further studies of the potential value of testing in patients with mCRC who were found to have tumors that are wild type (mutation negative) for KRAS to predict responsiveness to therapy.The EWG found insufficient evidence to recommend for or against testing for mutations in NRAS, or PIK3CA, and/or loss of expression of PTEN or AKT proteins. The level of certainty for this evidence was low. In the absence of supporting evidence, and with consideration of other contextual issues, the EWG discourages the use of these tests in guiding decisions on initiating anti-EGFR therapy with cetuximab or panitumumab unless further evidence supports improved clinical outcomes.Rationale: It has been suggested that patients with mCRC whose tumors harbor certain mutations affecting EGFR pathway signaling are typically unresponsive to therapy with anti-EGFR antibodies (cetuximab and panitumumab). The EWG identified recent evidence reviews that have addressed this topic, and this recommendation statement is based on results of these reviews. In developing these recommendations the EWG considered evidence in the areas described below.Analytic validity: Although no research syntheses that have formally evaluated analytic validity of these tests were found, the EWG was able to draw the following conclusions from assessments included in the evidence reviews under consideration. There is adequate evidence that KRAS mutation analysis reliably and accurately detects common mutations (codons 12 and 13), whereas evidence was inadequate for less frequent KRAS mutations (e.g., codon 61). There is also adequate evidence that testing for BRAF V600E accurately and reliably detects the mutation. For common mutations in NRAS, PIK3CA, and expression of PTEN AKT, there is adequate evidence of accurate and reliable detection. However, much less data exist in support. Furthermore, in the specific context of mCRC, no evidence was found on the analytic validity of immunohistochemistry (IHC) assays for PTEN or AKT expression.Clinical validity: For KRAS mutation analysis, the EWG found convincing evidence for association with treatment response to anti-EGFR therapy, independent of prognostic association. For BRAF V600E mutation testing, the EWG found insufficient evidence for association with treatment response to anti-EGFR therapy independent of prognostic association. The EWG found insufficient evidence for association of results of testing for mutations in NRAS or PIK3CA, and loss of expression of PTEN or ATK proteins, with treatment response to anti-EGFR therapy.Clinical utility: For KRAS mutation analysis, the EWG found adequate evidence that improved health outcomes are achieved by avoiding ineffective chemotherapy and potential side effects and expediting access to the next most effective treatment. Inadequate evidence was found regarding association of BRAF V600E mutation testing or loss of PTEN expression with improved health outcomes among patients with mCRC undergoing anti-EGFR therapy as compared with patients with tumors bearing wild-type BRAF sequence and PTEN expression levels, respectively. No evidence was found to support improved health outcomes associated with testing results for NRAS or PIK3CA variants, or AKT protein expression levels in this clinical scenario.Contextual issues: CRC is an important and highly prevalent health problem. Improvements in mCRC outcomes associated with pharmacogenetic testing could have important clinical, and potentially public health, impacts. Adverse events related to cancer chemotherapy can be common and severe. Therefore, successfully optimizing treatment to maximize efficacy and minimize side effects is important for reducing mCRC-related morbidity and mortality.Genet Med 2013:15(7):517–527