Is Variant Pathogenicity in the Eye of the Beholder? A Case of Unexplained Sudden Cardiac Arrest Highlights the Potentially Dangerous Role of Historical Rare Variant Compendia in SCN5A Rare Variant Adjudication

Marissa J. Stutzman,Dan Ye,David J. Tester,John R. Giudicessi,Michael J. Ackerman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrcr.2018.11.019

2019-01-01

HeartRhythm Case Reports

Abstract:Key Teaching Points•This study shows another example of the negative effects associated with using the alleged genotype to determine the presumed phenotype. In this case, the patient and her family were led down a treatment path designed for a channelopathy with which they should not have been diagnosed.•Genetic testing should never be used to make a primary diagnosis of Brugada syndrome (BrS) in isolation, especially when the clinical phenotype of BrS is sorely missing.•While guidelines have provided a major effort towards the standardization of variant interpretation, inter-laboratory differences in the use and implementation of the American College of Medical Genetics criteria exist.•Unfortunately, some genetic testing companies still conflate the mere presence of a specific variant in an early manuscript as evidence for pathogenicity, despite these reports lacking (1) adequate numbers of healthy controls, (2) functional characterization of the variant, or (3) illustration of proper co-segregation with the disease phenotype within a multigenerational pedigree; each of which individually, and more so concomitantly, constitutes more definitive evidence in the interrogation of a potentially pathogenic variant. •This study shows another example of the negative effects associated with using the alleged genotype to determine the presumed phenotype. In this case, the patient and her family were led down a treatment path designed for a channelopathy with which they should not have been diagnosed.•Genetic testing should never be used to make a primary diagnosis of Brugada syndrome (BrS) in isolation, especially when the clinical phenotype of BrS is sorely missing.•While guidelines have provided a major effort towards the standardization of variant interpretation, inter-laboratory differences in the use and implementation of the American College of Medical Genetics criteria exist.•Unfortunately, some genetic testing companies still conflate the mere presence of a specific variant in an early manuscript as evidence for pathogenicity, despite these reports lacking (1) adequate numbers of healthy controls, (2) functional characterization of the variant, or (3) illustration of proper co-segregation with the disease phenotype within a multigenerational pedigree; each of which individually, and more so concomitantly, constitutes more definitive evidence in the interrogation of a potentially pathogenic variant.