Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy (HCM) Panel

Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) is one of the most common human monogenic disorders with prevalence estimates of 1:500, predicting approximately 600,000 persons with HCM in the US alone. It is also the most common cause for sudden cardiac death among young adults. HCM is generally defined by the development of unexplained left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) and commonly caused by mutations in cardiac sarcomere genes. In HCM, LVH occurs in a non-dilated ventricle in the absence of other cardiac or systemic disease capable of producing the observed abnormal LV wall thickness. Systemic diseases that can mimic HCM are for example pressure overload due to long-standing hypertension or aortic stenosis, or storage/infiltrative disorders (Fabry disease, Pompe disease) or certain syndromes (Noonan spectrum diseases, Danon disease). The clinical manifestations of HCM range from asymptomatic LVH to progressive heart failure to ventricular arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death (SCD). Atrial fibrillation and atrioventricular conduction abnormalities can also manifest. HCM is the most common cause of sudden cardiac death under age of 30 and also the most common cause for SCD in athletes. SCD can be the first clinical manifestation even in patients with no clear LVH. Symptoms can vary from individual to individual even within the same family. Common symptoms include shortness of breath (particularly during exercise), chest pain, palpitations, orthostasis, presyncope, and syncope. Most often the LVH of HCM becomes apparent during adolescence or young adulthood, although it may also develop later in life, in infancy, or in childhood.

The target region for each gene includes coding exons and ±20 base pairs from the exon-intron boundary. In addition, the panel includes non-coding and regulatory variants if listed above (Non-coding variants covered by the panel). Some regions of the gene(s) may be removed from the panel if specifically mentioned in the ‘Test limitations” section above. If the test includes the mitochondrial genome the target region gene list contains the mitochondrial genes. The sequencing data generated in our laboratory is analyzed with our proprietary data analysis and annotation pipeline, integrating state-of-the art algorithms and industry-standard software solutions. Incorporation of rigorous quality control steps throughout the workflow of the pipeline ensures the consistency, validity and accuracy of results. Our pipeline is streamlined to maximize sensitivity without sacrificing specificity. We have incorporated a number of reference population databases and mutation databases including, but not limited, to 1000 Genomes Project, gnomAD, ClinVar and HGMD into our clinical interpretation software to make the process effective and efficient. For missense variants, in silico variant prediction tools such as  SIFT, PolyPhen,MutationTaster are used to assist with variant classification. Through our online ordering and statement reporting system, Nucleus, ordering providers have access to the details of the analysis, including patient specific sequencing metrics, a gene level coverage plot and a list of regions with suboptimal coverage (<20X for nuclear genes and <1000X for mtDNA) if applicable. This reflects our mission to build fully transparent diagnostics where ordering providers can easily visualize the crucial details of the analysis process.

We provide customers with the most comprehensive clinical report available on the market. Clinical interpretation requires a fundamental understanding of clinical genetics and genetic principles. At Blueprint Genetics, our PhD molecular geneticists, medical geneticists, and clinical consultants prepare the clinical statement together by evaluating the identified variants in the context of the phenotypic information provided in the requisition form. Our goal is to provide clinically meaningful statements that are understandable for all medical professionals regardless of whether they have formal training in genetics.

Variant classification is the cornerstone of clinical interpretation and resulting patient management decisions. Our classifications follow the ACMG guideline 2015.

The final step in the analysis is orthogonal confirmation. Sequence and copy number variants classified as pathogenic, likely pathogenic, and variants of uncertain significance (VUS) are confirmed using bi-directional Sanger sequencing or by orthogonal methods such as qPCR/ddPCR when they do not meet our stringent NGS quality metrics for a true positive call.

Our clinical statement includes tables for sequencing and copy number variants that include basic variant information (genomic coordinates, HGVS nomenclature, zygosity, allele frequencies, in silico predictions, OMIM phenotypes, and classification of the variant). In addition, the statement includes detailed descriptions of the variant, gene, and phenotype(s) including the role of the specific gene in human disease, the mutation profile, information about the gene’s variation in population cohorts, and detailed information about related phenotypes. We also provide links to the references, abstracts, and variant databases used to help ordering providers further evaluate the reported findings if desired. The conclusion summarizes all of the existing information and provides our rationale for the classification of the variant.

Identification of pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants in dominant disorders or their combinations in different alleles in recessive disorders are considered molecular confirmation of the clinical diagnosis. In these cases, family member testing can be used for risk stratification. We do not recommend using variants of uncertain significance (VUS) for family member risk stratification or patient management. Genetic counseling is recommended.

Our interpretation team analyzes millions of variants from thousands of individuals with rare diseases. Our internal database and our understanding of variants and related phenotypes increases with every case analyzed. Our laboratory is therefore well-positioned to re-classify previously reported variants as new information becomes available. If a variant previously reported by Blueprint Genetics is re-classified, our laboratory will issue a follow-up statement to the original ordering healthcare provider at no additional cost, according to our latest follow-up reporting policy.

Ackerman, M.J. et al. HRS/EHRA expert consensus statement on the state of genetic testing for the channelopathies and cardiomyopathies: this document was developed as a partnership between the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS) and the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA). Europace 2011, 13(8) , 1077–1109.

Ando, Y. et al., 2013. Guideline of transthyretin-related hereditary amyloidosis for clinicians. Orphanet J Rare Dis, 8, p.31.

Ashley, E.A. et al., 2012. Genetics and cardiovascular disease: a policy statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation, 126(1), pp.142–157.

Charron, P. et al. Genetic counselling and testing in cardiomyopathies: a position statement of the European Society of Cardiology Working Group on Myocardial and Pericardial Diseases. Eur Heart J 2010, (22), 2715–2726.

Dubrey, S.W. et al. 2011. Amyloid diseases of the heart: assessment, diagnosis, and referral. Heart, 97(1), pp.75–84.

Gersh, B.J. et al., 2011. 2011 ACCF/AHA guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation, 124(24), pp.2761–2796.

Gollob, M.H. et al., 2011. Recommendations for the use of genetic testing in the clinical evaluation of inherited cardiac arrhythmias associated with sudden cardiac death: Canadian Cardiovascular Society/Canadian Heart Rhythm Society joint position paper. Can J Card, 27(2), pp.232–245.

Hershberger, R.E. et al., 2009. Genetic evaluation of cardiomyopathy–a Heart Failure Society of America practice guideline. J Card Failure, 15(2), pp.83–97.

Ingles, J. et al. A cost-effectiveness model of genetic testing for the evaluation of families with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. Heart 2012, 98(8), 625–630.

Ingles, J. et al., 2013. Clinical predictors of genetic testing outcomes in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. Genetics in Medicine, 15(12), pp.972–977.

Katzin, L.W. & Amato, A.A., 2008. Pompe disease: a review of the current diagnosis and treatment recommendations in the era of enzyme replacement therapy. J Clin Neuromusc Dis, 9(4), pp.421–431.

Maron, B.J., 1997. Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. Lancet, 350(9071), pp.127–133.

Maron, B.J. & Maron, M.S., 2013. Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. Lancet, 381(9862), pp.242–255.

Maron, B.J. et al. Contemporary Definitions and Classification of the Cardiomyopathies: An American Heart Association Scientific Statement From the Council on Clinical Cardiology, Heart Failure and Transplantation Committee; Quality of Care and Outcomes Research and Functional Genomics and Translational Biology Interdisciplinary Working Groups; and Council on Epidemiology and Prevention. Circulation 2006, 113(14), 1807–1816.

Rauen, K.A., 2013. The RASopathies. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet, 14, pp.355–369.

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 2015 Mar 5, in press.