Genomic data sharing needs clinical information and standardization of lab

Michael Watson, executive director of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG), knows about the worth of laboratory standardization and clinical genomic data sharing in case to deliver the best possible patient care.

Watson asserts that genomic data sharing is crucial to advancing medical breakthroughs for the estimated 5,000 to 7,000 rare genetic ailments, each of which can vary dramatically and be caused by a multitude of various genetic changes.

“I was a laboratory director for twenty years and rare diseases aren’t easy,” claims Watson. “No one person, no one institution, and no one state will ever have sufficient data to actually inform them to the degree that they could be informed to make better the healthcare.”

That is the stark realization behind the latest position statement that ACMG released previous week calling call for “broad sharing” of laboratory and clinical data derived from people who have undergone genomic testing.

“Data that underpins healthcare service delivery should be treated neither as intellectual property nor as a trade secret when other sufferers might benefit from the knowledge being immensely available,” in accordance to ACMG’s position statement.

Although, Watson is the first to appreciate that translating genetic data into healthcare use is a significant challenge.

“It is relatively straightforward to put out a position statement—executing what you are suggesting is the hard part,” he claims. “It takes lots and lots of information from people all over the country, both labs and clinics, to get the kind of information we require helping everybody improve the way they deliver care.”

ACMG’s position statement makes the case that extensive genomic data sharing is important and to improve care by making available the best genomic data sharing possible by which:

• Important clinical attributes of the phenotype of those with genetic diseases can be described


• The qualitative strength of the link between genetic diseases and the underlying causative genes can be developed


• The classification of genomic variants across the range of benign to pathogenic can be created


• Differences in variant interpretation among laboratories can be reconciled


• The suitable classification of variants of uncertain significance can be made


• Standards used in variant classification can be improved

“Broad genomic data sharing is going to be significant,” Watson adds. “But, I think we are still trying to figure out how we do that.”

At the similar time, the ACMG points out that the “analytical issues of migrating and integrating clinical and laboratory data across the genome are daunting.” To deal these issues, the group calls for the standardization of laboratory and clinical data to enable data compatibility as well as interoperability between systems.

“If you are going to work out of an electronic health record (EHR) system, you need that type of consistency across labs and clinics all over the country so that the information that is put in the EHR is completely compatible with everybody else’s,” Watson claims.

He points to the Precision Medicine Initiative, an attempt to map the genomes of a million or more Americans and make the data available to researchers. Particularly, PMI is going to leverage EHRs to assist gather information for the national research cohort, with data about the study’s volunteers that can be derived from their records in terms of medical diagnoses, lab results, and what medications they are on.

Nevertheless, standards by which labs assess genomic variant classification are also significant to finally individualize and tailor treatments for sufferers, in accordance to Watson.

“If you look at the Precision Medicine Initiative, it is predicated on being capable to take data out of electronic health records (EHRs),” summarizes Watson. “That is a pretty complex issue to get your arms around in the absence of underlying standards.”