Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

One step forward, two steps backward

To the Editor:

We wish to express our concerns about the policy statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) regarding secondary/incidental findings (SF) and population screening as it applies to cancer susceptibility genes.1

In the first version of its recommendations, the ACMG stated that “reporting some incidental findings [of the ACMG 56] would likely have medical benefit for the patients and families of patients undergoing clinical sequencing.”2 In a thoughtful final section of the second version (ACMG 59), the SF Working Group acknowledged the challenges and potential impact of reporting actionable SFs in diverse contexts, including healthy adults and the added complexity of communicating the less definitively interpreted findings.3 However, the recent clarification by the ACMG board is more restrictive than either of the previous full statements, focusing on the fact that the ACMG 59 has not been validated for general population screening, and emphasizing the fact that penetrance may be uncertain and interventions unproven in asymptomatic groups undergoing genetic analysis.

The ACMG is certainly right to anticipate the complexities that will accompany the release of the data from enormous population-based cohort projects, including All of Us (genotyping and whole genome sequencing (WGS) for one million participants) and the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network. In eMERGE III, for instance, thousands of healthy participants have consented to undergo a sequencing panel of 110 actionable genes that includes the ACMG 59 list.4 One thoughtful model for coping with these challenges has been developed for the 100,000 Genomes Project in the UK, where a Genomic Clinical Interpretation Partnership is offering return of SF results (referred to as “additional” findings) from WGS, including pathogenic variants in some cancer predisposition genes.5

These concerns are understandable for many of the ACMG 59 genes, but difficult to apply fully for cancer susceptibility genes, which comprise 25 of the 59 genes, and for which cancer is often the sole phenotype. Established genotype–phenotype correlations have been documented and quantified for some prevalent founder variants within ethnicities and populations, such as the Ashkenazi BRCA1/2 variants and the Icelandic variants in MSH6 and PMS2 genes.6 Many of these variants have been evaluated in large studies, much larger than typical studies of single-gene variants in extremely rare genetic syndromes. Further, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and other guidelines endorse germline testing in several cancer patient cohorts (e.g., all ovarian, pancreatic, castrate-resistant prostate, and metastatic breast cancer patients for therapeutic options), and the analysis of tumor and circulating cell-free DNA to enable identification of potential somatic therapeutic targets will increasingly include germline data, further expanding the reach of hereditary cancer risk assessment.7

In addition, it has been estimated that fewer than 10% of individuals with prevalent BRCA1/2 and Lynch syndrome variants have been identified, while compelling cost-effectiveness studies of general and targeted population screening for breast/ovarian and Lynch-related mutation carriers show clear benefit to identification of unaffected carriers.8,9 We are not suggesting that all cancer susceptibility genes should be exempted. An example of a particularly challenging gene that has not been included in the ACMG list so far is CDH1, a highly penetrant gene within classic families, for which prophylactic gastrectomy and intensive breast surveillance are recommended in hopes of reducing mortality from highly lethal malignancies, in the absence, as yet, of definitive data on mortality reduction.10 Therefore, generalizing the risk reduction strategies to individuals for whom CDH1 variants are identified as SF remains controversial.

Considering that policy statements, guidelines, and recommendations already exist and are constantly being revised, we are concerned that the new ACMG policy statement1 is too restrictive for cancer susceptibility genes, and that the ACMG board should consider returning to the original statement of the ACMG 59 for this subset of actionable genes. We believe that acknowledging SF reporting through adult population screening for some prevalent highly penetrant cancer susceptibility genes is an important approach toward opportunistic cancer interception.


  1. 1.

    ACMG Board of Directors. The use of ACMG secondary findings recommendations for general population screening: a policy statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG). Genet Med. 2019;21:1467–1468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Green RC, Berg JS, Grody WW, et al. ACMG Policy Statement ACMG recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing. Genet Med. 2013;15:565–574.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Kalia SS, Adelman K, Bale SJ, et al. Recommendations for reporting of secondary findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing, 2016 update (ACMG SFv2.0): a policy statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Genet Med. 2017;19:249–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Pet DB, Holm IA, Williams JL. et al. Physicians’ perspectives on receiving unsolicited genomic results. Genet Med. 2019;21:311–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Ormondroyd E, Mackley MP, Blair E, et al. “Not pathogenic until proven otherwise”: perspectives of UK clinical genomics professionals toward secondary findings in context of a Genomic Medicine Multidisciplinary Team and the 100,000 Genomes Project. Genet Med. 2018;20:320–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Haraldsdottir S, Rafnar T, Frankel WL, et al. Comprehensive population-wide analysis of Lynch syndrome in Iceland reveals founder mutations in MSH6 and PMS2. Nat Commun. 2017;8:14755.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Slavin TP, Banks KC, Chudova D, et al. Identification of incidental germline mutations in patients with advanced solid tumors who underwent cell-free circulating tumor DNA sequencing. J Clin Oncol. 2018 Oct 19; [Epub ahead of print].

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Manchanda R, Patel S, Gordeev VS, et al. Cost-effectiveness of population-based BRCA1, BRCA2, RAD51C, RAD51D, BRIP1, PALB2 mutation testing in unselected general population women. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2018;110:714–725.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Dinh TA, Rosner BI, Atwood JC. et al. Health benefits and cost-effectiveness of primary genetic screening for Lynch syndrome in the general population. Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2011;4:9–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    van der Post RS, Vogelaar IP, Carneiro F. et al. Hereditary diffuse gastric cancer: Updated clinical guidelines with an emphasis on germline CDH1 mutation carriers. J Med Genet. 2015;52:361–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Israel Gomy MD, PhD.

Ethics declarations


J.E.G. reports the following conflicts of interest: Myriad Genetics (research support), Ambry Genetics (research support), Helix Genetics (Scientific Advisory Board, paid), Konica Minolta (Scientific Advisory Board, unpaid). I.G. declares no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gomy, I., Garber, J.E. One step forward, two steps backward. Genet Med 22, 441–442 (2020).

Download citation


Quick links