Skip to content

Beyond The List — Scope and Implementation of ACMG Secondary Findings (v3.3+)

ACMG 2026 standards-update symposium on the Secondary Findings list — current v3.3 implementation gaps, future scope expansion (including pediatric-onset cancer-predisposition reporting), and the "Beyond The List" question of whether SF should remain a closed gene-set or shift to a framework-based model.

  • Speaker / institution: ACMG Secondary Findings Working Group (SF WG); panel composition TBC from GIM supplement and ACMG Statements
  • Anchor type: guideline
  • Day / session: Mid-meeting featured symposium (Day 3–4, Mar 12–13, 2026); exact slot TBD
  • Status: post-meeting; from ACMG meeting site featured-session listing; whether SF v3.4 was officially released at the meeting TBD pending GIM supplement and ACMG Statements page

Headline finding

The Secondary Findings list — first published 2013 with 56 genes, now at v3.3 (2023, 81 genes) — is at a structural inflection: incremental gene-addition cycles are reaching diminishing returns, while the underlying clinical-lab universe has shifted (universal-WGS pediatric programs, expanded carrier screening, newborn-WGS pilots, NIFS) in ways that strain the original SF framing. Cancer-predisposition genes dominate the list — BRCA1, BRCA2, TP53, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2, APC, MUTYH, PTEN, RB1, RET, VHL, WT1, plus newer additions — and the policy load on the list comes disproportionately from cancer reporting. Specific SF v3.4 gene additions / removals (if any) and revised reporting recommendations TBD pending GIM supplement and the ACMG Statements page.

Methodology / framework

Framework discussion: (a) actionability criteria — clinical-management change must be available, validated, and meaningful; (b) penetrance thresholds — minimum age-of-onset-adjusted penetrance for inclusion; (c) gene-list maintenance cadence vs framework-based opt-in; (d) pediatric reporting framing — should adult-onset cancer-predisposition genes (BRCA, Lynch) be reported in pediatric WGS at all? Cross-references ClinGen Hereditary Cancer VCEPs for gene-disease validity backbone.

Lab-translation deep dive

Validation requirements. SF reporting requires the lab to validate the same genes on the same sample to the same depth / completeness as the primary indication — there is no half-validated SF tier. Practical floor: ≥20x at >99% of coding bases for the entire 81-gene v3.3 list, with explicit PMS2 / PMS2-pseudogene disambiguation (a perennial SF-list bioinformatics failure mode), PMS2CL handling, MSH2 inversion detection, and SMN1/SMN2 distinguishing capability for any genes with paralog issues. Validation packages must include exon-level CNV detection for relevant genes (BRCA1, BRCA2, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2, EPCAM).

Lab-stack changes. WGS labs absorb SF reporting more easily than panel / exome labs because coverage is uniform; panel labs must explicitly add SF capture probes when SF is offered as opt-in. Operational adds: opt-in / opt-out consent capture at order, SF-specific curation queue, separate SF report (or clearly delineated SF section), and patient-facing return-of-results workflow for the inevitable BRCA / Lynch positive that lands on a patient consented to SF but ordered for an unrelated indication.

Regulatory / insurance. SF reporting is in-scope under CLIA / CAP as part of any test offering SF — no separate FDA pathway. Payer coverage is the load-bearing constraint: BRCA / Lynch positives identified via SF need downstream surveillance / risk-reducing intervention coverage that often hinges on family-history criteria the patient may not meet. Equity / access is the most-cited gap.

Variant curation. ClinGen Hereditary Cancer VCEPs are the gene-disease-validity backbone; SF v3.3 already incorporates VCEP curation. SF v3.4 framework-vs-list question (TBD pending GIM supplement) materially changes curation cadence — a framework-based SF requires per-variant actionability gating, not just per-gene inclusion.

Where it fits in the corpus

Open questions

  • Should SF v3.4 (or successor) shift from a closed gene-list to a framework-based opt-in?
  • Pediatric-WGS reporting of adult-onset cancer-predisposition variants — at what age, to whom?
  • Equity / access — SF reporting is only as good as the downstream surveillance pathway

Sources