Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. 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.

Recommendations for reporting of secondary findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing, 2021 update: a policy statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG)

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Evaluation process for genes nominated for addition to, or removal from, the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) secondary findings SF list.

References

  1. 1.

    Green, R. C. et al. ACMG recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing. Genet. Med. 15, 565–574 (2013).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Kalia, S. S. et al. 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, 249–255 (2017).

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Scheuner, M. T. et al. Reporting genomic secondary findings: ACMG members weigh in. Genet. Med. 17, 27–35 (2015).

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    ACMG. Secondary findings nomination form. https://www.acmg.net/PDFLibrary/Secondary-Findings-Panel-Nomination-Form.pdf (2021).

  5. 5.

    Amendola, L. M. et al. Actionable exomic incidental findings in 6503 participants: challenges of variant classification. Genome Res. 25, 305–315 (2015).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Yang, Y. et al. Molecular findings among patients referred for clinical whole-exome sequencing. JAMA. 312, 1870–1879 (2014).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Retterer, K. et al. Clinical application of whole-exome sequencing across clinical indications. Genet. Med. 18, 696–704 (2016).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Schwartz, M. L. B. et al. A model for genome-first care: returning secondary genomic findings to participants and their healthcare providers in a large research cohort. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 103, 328–337 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Dewey, F. E. et al. Distribution and clinical impact of functional variants in 50,726 whole-exome sequences from the DiscovEHR study. Science. 354, aaf6814 (2016).

    PubMed  Article  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Van Hout, C. V. et al. Exome sequencing and characterization of 49,960 individuals in the UK Biobank. Nature. 586, 749–756 (2020).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    eMERGE Clinical Annotation Working Group. Frequency of genomic secondary findings among 21,915 eMERGE network participants. Genet. Med. 22, 1470–1477 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Popejoy, A. B. et al. The clinical imperative for inclusivity: Race, ethnicity, and ancestry (REA) in genomics. Hum. Mutat. 39, 1713–1720 (2018).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Popejoy, A. B. et al. Clinical genetics lacks standard definitions and protocols for the collection and use of diversity measures. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 107, 72–82 (2020).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Mackley, M. P., Fletcher, B., Parker, M., Watkins, H. & Ormondroyd, O. Stakeholder views on secondary findings in whole-genome and whole-exome sequencing: a systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies. Genet. Med. 19, 283–293 (2017).

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Delanne, J. et al. Secondary findings from whole-exome/genome sequencing evaluating stakeholder perspectives. A review of the literature. Eur. J. Med. Genet. 62, 103529 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Darnell, A. J. et al. A clinical service to support the return of secondary genomic findings in human research. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 98, 435–441 (2016).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Wynn, J. et al. Clinical providers’ experiences with returning results from genomic sequencing: an interview study. BMC Med. Genomics. 11, 45 (2018).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Ormondroyd, 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. 20, 320–328 (2018).

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Szego, M. J. et al. Views from the clinic: Healthcare provider perspectives on whole genome sequencing in paediatrics. Eur. J. Med. Genet. 62, 350–356 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Wilfond, B. S., Fernandez, C. V. & Green, R. C. Disclosing secondary findings from pediatric sequencing to families: considering the “Benefit to Families”. J. Law Med. Ethics. 43, 552–558 (2015).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Hart, M. R. et al. Secondary findings from clinical genomic sequencing: prevalence, patient perspectives, family history assessment, and health-care costs from a multisite study. Genet. Med. 21, 1100–1110 (2019).

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Roche, M. I. et al. Factors influencing NCGENES research participants’ requests for non-medically actionable secondary findings. Genet. Med. 21, 1092–1099 (2019).

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Robinson, J. O. et al. Psychological outcomes related to exome and genome sequencing result disclosure: a meta-analysis of seven Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) Consortium studies. Genet. Med. 21, 2781–2790 (2019).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Houdayer, F. et al. Secondary findings from next generation sequencing: psychological and ethical issues. Family and patient perspectives. Eur. J. Med. Genet. 62, 103711 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Anderson, J. A. et al. Parents perspectives on whole genome sequencing for their children: qualified enthusiasm? J. Med. Ethics. 43, 535–539 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Richards, S. et al. Standards and guidelines for the interpretation of sequence variants: a joint consensus recommendation of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association for Molecular Pathology. Genet. Med. 17, 405–424 (2015).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    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. 21, 1467–1468 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    ACMG Board of Directors. ACMG policy statement: updated recommendations regarding analysis and reporting of secondary findings in clinical genome-scale sequencing. Genet. Med. 17, 68–69 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    O’Daniel, J. M. et al. A survey of current practices for genomic sequencing test interpretation and reporting processes in US laboratories. Genet. Med. 19, 575–582 (2017).

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Ross, L. F., Saal, H. M., David, K. L. & Anderson, R. Technical report: ethical and policy issues in genetic testing and screening of children. Genet. Med. 15, 234–245 (2013).

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Monaghan, K. G., Leach, N. T., Pekarek, D., Prasad, P. & Rose, N. C. The use of fetal exome sequencing in prenatal diagnosis: a points to consider document of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG). Genet. Med. 22, 675–680 (2020).

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Sapp, J. C. et al. Evaluation of recipients of positive and negative secondary findings evaluations in a hybrid CLIA-research sequencing pilot. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 103, 358–366 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    eMERGE Consortium. Harmonizing clinical sequencing and interpretation for the eMERGE III Network. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 105, 588–605 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Batalini, F. et al. Li-Fraumeni syndrome: not a straightforward diagnosis anymore-the interpretation of pathogenic variants of low allele frequency and the differences between germline PVs, mosaicism, and clonal hematopoiesis. Breast Cancer Res. 21, 107 (2019).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Cao, Y. et al. A clinical survey of mosaic single nucleotide variants in disease-causing genes detected by exome sequencing. Genome Med. 11, 48 (2019).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Biesecker, L. G. Secondary findings in exome slices, virtual panels, and anticipatory sequencing. Genet. Med. 21, 41–43 (2019).

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Biesecker, L. G. Response to Mendelsohn and Sabbadini. Genet. Med. 21, 763 (2019).

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Esplin, E. D., Haverfield, E., Yang, S., Aradhya, S. & Nussbaum, R. L. Secondary findings on virtual panels: opportunities, challenges, and potential for preventive medicine. Genet. Med. 21, 1250–1251 (2019).

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Biesecker, L. G. Response to Esplin et al. Genet. Med. 21, 1252–1253 (2019).

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Rumilla, K. et al. Frequency of deletions of EPCAM (TACSTD1) in MSH2-associated Lynch syndrome cases. J. Mol. Diagn. 13, 93–99 (2011).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Hunter, J. E. et al. A standardized, evidence-based protocol to assess clinical actionability of genetic disorders associated with genomic variation. Genet. Med. 18, 1258–1268 (2016).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Webber, E. M. et al. Evidence-based assessments of clinical actionability in the context of secondary findings: Updates from ClinGen’s Actionability Working Group. Hum. Mutat. 39, 1677–1685 (2018).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Harrison, S. M. & Rehm, H. L. Is ‘likely pathogenic’ really 90% likely? Reclassification data in ClinVar. Genome Med. 11, 72 (2019).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Gallego, C. J. et al. Penetrance of hemochromatosis in HFE genotypes resulting in p.Cys282Tyr and p.[Cys282Tyr];[His63Asp] in the eMERGE Network. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 97, 512–520 (2015).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Grosse, S. D., Gurrin, L. C., Bertalli, N. A. & Allen, K. J. Clinical penetrance in hereditary hemochromatosis: estimates of the cumulative incidence of severe liver disease among HFE C282Y homozygotes. Genet. Med. 20, 383–389 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Laberge, A. M. Recommending inclusion of HFE C282Y homozygotes in the ACMG actionable gene list: cop-out or stealth move toward population screening? Genet. Med. 20, 400–402 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Roberts, A. M. et al. Integrated allelic, transcriptional, and phenomic dissection of the cardiac effects of titin truncations in health and disease. Sci. Transl. Med. 7, 270ra6 (2015).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Haggerty, C. M. et al. Genomics-first evaluation of heart disease associated with titin-truncating variants. Circulation. 140, 42–54 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Pujol, P. et al. Guidelines for reporting secondary findings of genome sequencing in cancer genes: the SFMPP recommendations. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 26, 1732–1742 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Begg, C. B. On the use of familial aggregation in population-based case probands for calculating penetrance. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 94, 1221–1226 (2002).

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Wright, C. F. et al. Assessing the pathogenicity, penetrance, and expressivity of putative disease-causing variants in a population setting. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 104, 275–286 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank members of the original ACMG Incidental Findings Working Group for their groundbreaking efforts to begin the important process of identifying and reporting actionable genetic variants based on genome-scale sequencing. We thank former members of the Secondary Findings Maintenance Working Group for building upon the foundation of the original effort.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Consortia

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

S.J.B. is a contractor to GeneDx, a subsidiary of OPKO, through Bale Genetic Consulting, LLC. W.K.C. is a member of the scientific advisory board of Regeneron Genetic Center. D.T.M. has received honoraria from Ambry Genetics and PreventionGenetics LLC. D.R.S. is supported by the Intramural Research Program of the Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics of the National Cancer Institute (Rockville, MD), and also performs contract clinical telehealth services for Genome Medical, Inc. in accordance with relevant NCI ethics policies. The other authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

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

Disclaimer

This statement is designed primarily as an educational resource for medical geneticists and other clinicians to help them provide quality medical services. Adherence to this statement is completely voluntary and does not necessarily assure a successful medical outcome. This statement should not be considered inclusive of all proper procedures and tests or exclusive of other procedures and tests that are reasonably directed to obtaining the same results. In determining the propriety of any specific procedure or test, the clinician should apply his or her own professional judgment to the specific clinical circumstances presented by the individual patient or specimen.

Clinicians are encouraged to document the reasons for the use of a particular procedure or test, whether or not it is in conformance with this statement. Clinicians also are advised to take notice of the date this statement was adopted, and to consider other medical and scientific information that becomes available after that date. It also would be prudent to consider whether intellectual property interests may restrict the performance of certain tests and other procedures.

*The Board of Directors of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics approved this statement on 22 February 2021.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Miller, D.T., Lee, K., Gordon, A.S. et al. Recommendations for reporting of secondary findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing, 2021 update: a policy statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG). Genet Med (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41436-021-01171-4

Download citation

Further reading

Search

Quick links