Specifications of the ACMG/AMP Variant Classification Guidelines for Germline DICER1 Variant Curation.

Germline pathogenic variants in DICER1 predispose individuals to develop a variety of benign and malignant tumors. Accurate variant curation and classification is essential for reliable diagnosis of DICER1-related tumor predisposition and identification of individuals who may benefit from surveillance. Since 2015, most labs have followed the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association for Molecular Pathology (ACMG/AMP) sequence variant classification guidelines for DICER1 germline variant curation. However, these general guidelines lack gene-specific nuances and leave room for subjectivity. Consequently, a group of DICER1 experts joined ClinGen to form the DICER1 and miRNA-Processing Genes Variant Curation Expert Panel (VCEP), to create DICER1- specific ACMG/AMP guidelines for germline variant curation. The VCEP followed the FDA-approved ClinGen protocol for adapting and piloting these guidelines. A diverse set of 40 DICER1 variants were selected for piloting, including 14 known Pathogenic/Likely Pathogenic (P/LP) variants, 12 known Benign/Likely Benign (B/LB) variants, and 14 variants classified as variants of uncertain significance (VUS) or with conflicting interpretations in ClinVar. Clinically meaningful classifications (i.e., P, LP, LB, or B) were achieved for 82.5% (33/40) of the pilot variants, with 100% concordance among the known P/LP and known B/LB variants. Half of the VUS or conflicting variants were resolved with four variants classified as LB and three as LP. These results demonstrate that the DICER1-specific guidelines for germline variant curation effectively classify known pathogenic and benign variants while reducing the frequency of uncertain classifications. Individuals and labs curating DICER1 variants should consider adopting this classification framework to encourage consistency and improve objectivity.

The landscape of reported VUS in multi-gene panel and genomic testing: Time for a change.

PURPOSE: Variants of uncertain significance (VUS) are a common result of diagnostic genetic testing and can be difficult to manage with potential misinterpretation and downstream costs, including time investment by clinicians. We investigated the rate of VUS reported on diagnostic testing via multi-gene panels (MGPs) and exome and genome sequencing (ES/GS) to measure the magnitude of uncertain results and explore ways to reduce their potentially detrimental impact. METHODS: Rates of inconclusive results due to VUS were collected from over 1.5 million sequencing test results from 19 clinical laboratories in North America from 2020 to 2021. RESULTS: We found a lower rate of inconclusive test results due to VUSs from ES/GS (22.5%) compared with MGPs (32.6%; P < .0001). For MGPs, the rate of inconclusive results correlated with panel size. The use of trios reduced inconclusive rates (18.9% vs 27.6%; P < .0001), whereas the use of GS compared with ES had no impact (22.2% vs 22.6%; P = ns). CONCLUSION: The high rate of VUS observed in diagnostic MGP testing warrants examining current variant reporting practices. We propose several approaches to reduce reported VUS rates, while directing clinician resources toward important VUS follow-up.

Tumour characteristics provide evidence for germline mismatch repair missense variant pathogenicity.

BACKGROUND: Pathogenic variants in mismatch repair (MMR) genes (MLH1, MSH2, MSH6 and PMS2) increase risk for Lynch syndrome and related cancers. We quantified tumour characteristics to assess variant pathogenicity for germline MMR genes. METHODS: Among 4740 patients with cancer with microsatellite instability (MSI) and immunohistochemical (IHC) results, we tested MMR pathogenic variant association with MSI/IHC status, and estimated likelihood ratios which we used to compute a tumour characteristic likelihood ratio (TCLR) for each variant. Predictive performance of TCLR in combination with in silico predictors, and a multifactorial variant prediction (MVP) model that included allele frequency, co-occurrence, co-segregation, and clinical and family history information was assessed. RESULTS: Compared with non-carriers, carriers of germline pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants were more likely to have abnormal MSI/IHC status (p<0.0001). Among 150 classified missense variants, 73.3% were accurately predicted with TCLR alone. Models leveraging in silico scores as prior probabilities accurately classified >76.7% variants. Adding TCLR as quantitative evidence in an MVP model (MVP +TCLR Pred) increased the proportion of accurately classified variants from 88.0% (MVP alone) to 98.0% and generated optimal performance statistics among all models tested. Importantly, MVP +TCLR Pred resulted in the high yield of predicted classifications for missense variants of unknown significance (VUS); among 193 VUS, 62.7% were predicted as P/PL or benign/likely benign (B/LB) when assessed according to American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics/Association for Molecular Pathology guidelines. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates that when used separately or in conjunction with other evidence, tumour characteristics provide evidence for germline MMR missense variant assessment, which may have important implications for genetic testing and clinical management.

Splice-Break: exploiting an RNA-seq splice junction algorithm to discover mitochondrial DNA deletion breakpoints and analyses of psychiatric disorders.

Deletions in the 16.6 kb mitochondrial genome have been implicated in numerous disorders that often display muscular and/or neurological symptoms due to the high-energy demands of these tissues. We describe a catalogue of 4489 putative mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) deletions, including their frequency and relative read rate, using a combinatorial approach of mitochondria-targeted PCR, next-generation sequencing, bioinformatics, post-hoc filtering, annotation, and validation steps. Our bioinformatics pipeline uses MapSplice, an RNA-seq splice junction detection algorithm, to detect and quantify mtDNA deletion breakpoints rather than mRNA splices. Analyses of 93 samples from postmortem brain and blood found (i) the 4977 bp 'common deletion' was neither the most frequent deletion nor the most abundant; (ii) brain contained significantly more deletions than blood; (iii) many high frequency deletions were previously reported in MitoBreak, suggesting they are present at low levels in metabolically active tissues and are not exclusive to individuals with diagnosed mitochondrial pathologies; (iv) many individual deletions (and cumulative metrics) had significant and positive correlations with age and (v) the highest deletion burdens were observed in major depressive disorder brain, at levels greater than Kearns-Sayre Syndrome muscle. Collectively, these data suggest the Splice-Break pipeline can detect and quantify mtDNA deletions at a high level of resolution.

Classification of variants of uncertain significance in BRCA1 and BRCA2 using personal and family history of cancer from individuals in a large hereditary cancer multigene panel testing cohort.

PURPOSE: Genetic testing of individuals often results in identification of genomic variants of unknown significance (VUS). Multiple lines of evidence are used to help determine the clinical significance of these variants. METHODS: We analyzed ~138,000 individuals tested by multigene panel testing (MGPT). We used logistic regression to predict carrier status based on personal and family history of cancer. This was applied to 4644 tested individuals carrying 2383 BRCA1/2 variants to calculate likelihood ratios informing pathogenicity for each. Heterogeneity tests were performed for specific classes of variants defined by in silico predictions. RESULTS: Twenty-two variants labeled as VUS had odds of >10:1 in favor of pathogenicity. The heterogeneity analysis found that among variants in functional domains that were predicted to be benign by in silico tools, a significantly higher proportion of variants were estimated to be pathogenic than previously indicated; that missense variants outside of functional domains should be considered benign; and that variants predicted to create de novo donor sites were also largely benign. CONCLUSION: The evidence presented here supports the use of personal and family history from MGPT in the classification of VUS and will be integrated into ongoing efforts to provide large-scale multifactorial classification.

A clinical guide to hereditary cancer panel testing: evaluation of gene-specific cancer associations and sensitivity of genetic testing criteria in a cohort of 165,000 high-risk patients.

PURPOSE: Despite the rapid uptake of multigene panel testing (MGPT) for hereditary cancer predisposition, there is limited guidance surrounding indications for testing and genes to include. METHODS: To inform the clinical approach to hereditary cancer MGPT, we comprehensively evaluated 32 cancer predisposition genes by assessing phenotype-specific pathogenic variant (PV) frequencies, cancer risk associations, and performance of genetic testing criteria in a cohort of 165,000 patients referred for MGPT. RESULTS: We identified extensive genetic heterogeneity surrounding predisposition to cancer types commonly referred for germline testing (breast, ovarian, colorectal, uterine/endometrial, pancreatic, and melanoma). PV frequencies were highest among patients with ovarian cancer (13.8%) and lowest among patients with melanoma (8.1%). Fewer than half of PVs identified in patients meeting testing criteria for only BRCA1/2 or only Lynch syndrome occurred in the respective genes (33.1% and 46.2%). In addition, 5.8% of patients with PVs in BRCA1/2 and 26.9% of patients with PVs in Lynch syndrome genes did not meet respective testing criteria. CONCLUSION: Opportunities to improve upon identification of patients at risk for hereditary cancer predisposition include revising BRCA1/2 and Lynch syndrome testing criteria to include additional clinically actionable genes with overlapping phenotypes and relaxing testing criteria for associated cancers.

Misattributed parentage as an unanticipated finding during exome/genome sequencing: current clinical laboratory practices and an opportunity for standardization.

PURPOSE: Clinical laboratories performing exome or genome sequencing (ES/GS) are familiar with the challenges associated with proper consenting for and reporting of medically actionable secondary findings based on recommendations from the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG). Misattributed parentage is another type of unanticipated finding a laboratory may encounter during family-based ES/GS; however, there are currently no professional recommendations related to the proper consenting for and reporting of misattributed parentage encountered during ES/GS. METHODS: We surveyed 10 clinical laboratories offering family-based ES/GS regarding their consent language, discovery, and reporting of misattributed parentage. RESULTS: Many laboratories have already developed their own practices/policies for these issues, which do not necessarily agree with those from other labs. CONCLUSION: There are several other possibilities besides true misattributed parentage that could result in similar laboratory findings, and laboratories often feel they lack sufficient information to make formal conclusions on a report regarding the true genetic relatedness of the submitted samples. However, understanding the genetic relatedness (or lack thereof) of the samples submitted for family-based ES/GS has medical relevance. Therefore, professional recommendations for the appropriate handling of suspected misattributed parentage encountered during ES/GS are needed to help standardize current clinical laboratory practices.

Women with breast and uterine cancer are more likely to harbor germline mutations than women with breast or uterine cancer alone: A case for expanded gene testing.

OBJECTIVE: We explored the germline mutation spectrum and prevalence among 1650 women with breast and uterine cancer (BUC) who underwent multi-gene hereditary cancer panel testing at a single commercial laboratory. METHODS: The combined frequency of mutations in 23 BC and/or UC genes was compared between BUC cases and control groups with (1) no personal cancer history; (2) BC only; and (3) UC only using logistic regression. RESULTS: Fourteen percent (n = 231) of BUC cases tested positive for mutations in BC and/or UC genes and were significantly more likely to test positive than individuals with BC only (P < 0.001), UC only (P < 0.01), or unaffected controls (P < 0.001). Analysis of gene-specific mutation frequencies revealed that MSH6, CHEK2, BRCA1, BRCA2, ATM, PMS2, PALB2 and MSH2 were most frequently mutated among BUC cases. Compared to BC only, BRCA1, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2 and PTEN mutations were more frequent among BUC; however, only ATM mutations were more frequent among BUC compared to UC only. All of the more commonly mutated genes have published management guidelines to guide clinical care. Of patients with a single mutation in a gene with established testing criteria (n = 152), only 81.6% met their respective criteria, and 65.8% met criteria for multiple syndromes. CONCLUSIONS: Women with BUC are more likely to carry hereditary cancer gene mutations than women with breast or uterine cancer alone, potentially warranting expanded genetic testing for these women. Most mutations found via multi-gene panel testing in women with BUC have accompanying published management guidelines and significant implications for clinical care.

Correction: Candidate-gene criteria for clinical reporting: diagnostic exome sequencing identifies altered candidate genes among 8% of patients with undiagnosed diseases.

In the published version of this paper, some of the columns in the last three rows of Table 3 were mistakenly transposed. The corrected table appears below. In col. 6 of the row for DNMT3A, "S3" was published in the original article. However, in the revised table for the corrigendum, it has been corrected to "S1". In col. 6 of the row for SON, "S3" was published in the original article. However, in the revised table for the corrigendum, it has been corrected to "S2".

Somatic TP53 variants frequently confound germ-line testing results.

PURPOSE: Blood/saliva DNA is thought to represent the germ line in genetic cancer-risk assessment. Cases with pathogenic TP53 variants detected by multigene panel testing are often discordant with Li-Fraumeni syndrome, raising concern about misinterpretation of acquired aberrant clonal expansions (ACEs) with TP53 variants as germ-line results. METHODS: Pathogenic TP53 variants with abnormal next-generation sequencing metrics (e.g., decreased ratio (<25%) of mutant to wild-type allele, more than two detected alleles) were selected from a CLIA laboratory testing cohort. Alternate tissues and/or close relatives were tested to distinguish between ACE and germ-line status. Clinical data and Li-Fraumeni syndrome testing criteria were examined. RESULTS: Among 114,630 multigene panel tests and 1,454 TP53 gene-specific analyses, abnormal next-generation sequencing metrics were observed in 20% of 353 TP53-positive results, and ACE was confirmed for 91% of cases with ancillary materials, most of these due to clonal hematopoiesis. Only four met Chompret criteria. Individuals with ACE were older (50 years vs. 33.7; P = 0.02) and were identified more frequently in multigene panel tests (66/285; 23.2%) than in TP53 gene-specific tests (6/68; 8.8%, P = 0.005). CONCLUSION: ACE confounds germ-line diagnosis, may portend hematologic malignancy, and may provoke unwarranted clinical interventions. Ancillary testing to confirm germ-line status should precede Li-Fraumeni syndrome management.

Male breast cancer in a multi-gene panel testing cohort: insights and unexpected results.

PURPOSE: Genetic predisposition to male breast cancer (MBC) is not well understood. The aim of this study was to better define the predisposition genes contributing to MBC and the utility of germline multi-gene panel testing (MGPT) for explaining the etiology of MBCs. METHODS: Clinical histories and molecular results were retrospectively reviewed for 715 MBC patients who underwent MGPT from March 2012 to June 2016. RESULTS: The detection rate of MGPT was 18.1% for patients tested for variants in 16 breast cancer susceptibility genes and with no prior BRCA1/2 testing. BRCA2 and CHEK2 were the most frequently mutated genes (11.0 and 4.1% of patients with no prior BRCA1/2 testing, respectively). Pathogenic variants in BRCA2 [odds ratio (OR) = 13.9; p = 1.92 × 10-16], CHEK2 (OR = 3.7; p = 6.24 × 10-24), and PALB2 (OR = 6.6, p = 0.01) were associated with significantly increased risks of MBC. The average age at diagnosis of MBC was similar for patients with (64 years) and without (62 years) pathogenic variants. CHEK2 1100delC carriers had a significantly lower average age of diagnosis (n = 7; 54 years) than all others with pathogenic variants (p = 0.03). No significant differences were observed between history of additional primary cancers (non-breast) and family history of male breast cancer for patients with and without pathogenic variants. However, patients with pathogenic variants in BRCA2 were more likely to have a history of multiple primary breast cancers. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that all MBC patients regardless of age of diagnosis, history of multiple primary cancers, or family history of MBC should be offered MGPT.

Clinical laboratories collaborate to resolve differences in variant interpretations submitted to ClinVar.

PURPOSE: Data sharing through ClinVar offers a unique opportunity to identify interpretation differences between laboratories. As part of a ClinGen initiative, four clinical laboratories (Ambry, GeneDx, Partners Healthcare Laboratory for Molecular Medicine, and University of Chicago Genetic Services Laboratory) collaborated to identify the basis of interpretation differences and to investigate if data sharing and reassessment resolve interpretation differences by analyzing a subset of variants. METHODS: ClinVar variants with submissions from at least two of the four participating laboratories were compared. For a subset of identified differences, laboratories documented the basis for discordance, shared internal data, independently reassessed with the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics-Association for Molecular Pathology (ACMG-AMP) guidelines, and then compared interpretations. RESULTS: At least two of the participating laboratories interpreted 6,169 variants in ClinVar, of which 88.3% were initially concordant. Laboratories reassessed 242/724 initially discordant variants, of which 87.2% (211) were resolved by reassessment with current criteria and/or internal data sharing; 12.8% (31) of reassessed variants remained discordant owing to differences in the application of the ACMG-AMP guidelines. CONCLUSION: Participating laboratories increased their overall concordance from 88.3 to 91.7%, indicating that sharing variant interpretations in ClinVar-thereby allowing identification of differences and motivation to resolve those differences-is critical to moving toward more consistent variant interpretations.Genet Med advance online publication 09 March 2017.

Candidate-gene criteria for clinical reporting: diagnostic exome sequencing identifies altered candidate genes among 8% of patients with undiagnosed diseases.

PURPOSE: Diagnostic exome sequencing (DES) is now a commonly ordered test for individuals with undiagnosed genetic disorders. In addition to providing a diagnosis for characterized diseases, exome sequencing has the capacity to uncover novel candidate genes for disease. METHODS: Family-based DES included analysis of both characterized and novel genetic etiologies. To evaluate candidate genes for disease in the clinical setting, we developed a systematic, rule-based classification schema. RESULTS: Testing identified a candidate gene among 7.7% (72/934) of patients referred for DES; 37 (4.0%) and 35 (3.7%) of the genes received evidence scores of "candidate" and "suspected candidate," respectively. A total of 71 independent candidate genes were reported among the 72 patients, and 38% (27/71) were subsequently corroborated in the peer-reviewed literature. This rate of corroboration increased to 51.9% (27/52) among patients whose gene was reported at least 12 months previously. CONCLUSIONS: Herein, we provide transparent, comprehensive, and standardized scoring criteria for the clinical reporting of candidate genes. These results demonstrate that DES is an integral tool for genetic diagnosis, especially for elucidating the molecular basis for both characterized and novel candidate genetic etiologies. Gene discoveries also advance the understanding of normal human biology and more common diseases.Genet Med 19 2, 224-235.

A survey of current practices for genomic sequencing test interpretation and reporting processes in US laboratories.

PURPOSE: While the diagnostic success of genomic sequencing expands, the complexity of this testing should not be overlooked. Numerous laboratory processes are required to support the identification, interpretation, and reporting of clinically significant variants. This study aimed to examine the workflow and reporting procedures among US laboratories to highlight shared practices and identify areas in need of standardization. METHODS: Surveys and follow-up interviews were conducted with laboratories offering exome and/or genome sequencing to support a research program or for routine clinical services. The 73-item survey elicited multiple choice and free-text responses that were later clarified with phone interviews. RESULTS: Twenty-one laboratories participated. Practices highly concordant across all groups included consent documentation, multiperson case review, and enabling patient opt-out of incidental or secondary findings analysis. Noted divergence included use of phenotypic data to inform case analysis and interpretation and reporting of case-specific quality metrics and methods. Few laboratory policies detailed procedures for data reanalysis, data sharing, or patient access to data. CONCLUSION: This study provides an overview of practices and policies of experienced exome and genome sequencing laboratories. The results enable broader consideration of which practices are becoming standard approaches, where divergence remains, and areas of development in best practice guidelines that may be helpful.Genet Med advance online publication 03 Novemeber 2016.

Enhanced utility of family-centered diagnostic exome sequencing with inheritance model-based analysis: results from 500 unselected families with undiagnosed genetic conditions.

PURPOSE: Diagnostic exome sequencing was immediately successful in diagnosing patients in whom traditional technologies were uninformative. Herein, we provide the results from the first 500 probands referred to a clinical laboratory for diagnostic exome sequencing. METHODS: Family-based exome sequencing included whole-exome sequencing followed by family inheritance-based model filtering, comprehensive medical review, familial cosegregation analysis, and analysis of novel genes. RESULTS: A positive or likely positive result in a characterized gene was identified in 30% of patients (152/500). A novel gene finding was identified in 7.5% of patients (31/416). The highest diagnostic rates were observed among patients with ataxia, multiple congenital anomalies, and epilepsy (44, 36, and 35%, respectively). Twenty-three percent of positive findings were within genes characterized within the past 2 years. The diagnostic rate was significantly higher among families undergoing a trio (37%) as compared with a singleton (21%) whole-exome testing strategy. CONCLUSION: Overall, we present results from the largest clinical cohort of diagnostic exome sequencing cases to date. These data demonstrate the utility of family-based exome sequencing and analysis to obtain the highest reported detection rate in an unselected clinical cohort, illustrating the utility of diagnostic exome sequencing as a transformative technology for the molecular diagnosis of genetic disease.

ELP2 is a novel gene implicated in neurodevelopmental disabilities.

Elongator is a multi-subunit protein complex essential to transcription elongation, histone acetylation, and tRNA modification. The complex consists of six highly conserved protein subunits, called Elongator Proteins (ELP) 1-6. Apart from an association with intellectual disability (ID), there is limited clinical information about patients with ELP2 variants. Here we report on two brothers with severe ID, spastic diplegia, and self-injury whose presentation eluded a diagnosis for over 20 years. In both brothers, whole exome sequencing revealed a likely pathogenic, compound heterozygous missense variant in ELP2. We describe the phenotype and natural history of the ELP2-related disorder in these brothers.

Hereditary predisposition to ovarian cancer, looking beyond BRCA1/BRCA2.

OBJECTIVE: Genetic predisposition to ovarian cancer is well documented. With the advent of next generation sequencing, hereditary panel testing provides an efficient method for evaluating multiple genes simultaneously. Therefore, we sought to investigate the contribution of 19 genes identified in the literature as increasing the risk of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) in a BRCA1 and BRCA2 negative population of patients with a personal history of breast and/or ovarian cancer by means of a hereditary cancer panel. METHODS: Subjects were referred for multi-gene panel testing between February 2012 and March 2014. Clinical data was ascertained from requisition forms. The incidence of pathogenic mutations (including likely pathogenic), and variant of unknown significance were then calculated for each gene and/or patient cohort. RESULTS: In this cohort of 911 subjects, panel testing identified 67 mutations. With 7.4% of subjects harboring a mutation on this multi-gene panel, the diagnostic yield was increased, compared to testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations alone. In the ovarian cancer probands, the most frequently mutated genes were BRIP1 (n=8; 1.72%) and MSH6 (n=6; 1.29%). In the breast cancer probands, mutations were most commonly observed in CHEK2 (n=9; 2.54%), ATM (n=3; 0.85%), and TP53 (n=3; 0.85%). CONCLUSIONS: Although further studies are needed to clarify the exact management of patients with a mutation in each gene, this study highlights information that can be captured with panel testing and provides support for incorporation of panel testing into clinical practice.

Patient decisions for disclosure of secondary findings among the first 200 individuals undergoing clinical diagnostic exome sequencing.

PURPOSE: Exome sequencing of a single individual for a clinical indication may result in the identification of incidental deleterious variants unrelated to the indication for testing (secondary findings). Given the recent availability of clinical exome testing, there is a limited knowledge regarding the disclosure preferences and impact of secondary findings in a clinical diagnostic setting. In this article, we provide preliminary data regarding the preferences for secondary findings results disclosure based on the first 200 families referred to Ambry Genetics for diagnostic exome sequencing. METHODS: Secondary findings were categorized into four groups in the diagnostic exome sequencing consent: carrier status of recessive disorders, predisposition to later-onset disease, predisposition to increased cancer risk, and early-onset disease. In this study, we performed a retrospective analysis of patient responses regarding the preferences for secondary findings disclosure. RESULTS: The majority of patients (187/200; 93.5%) chose to receive secondary results for one or more available categories. Adult probands were more likely than children to opt for blinding of secondary data (16 vs. 4%, respectively). Among responses for blinding, preferences were evenly scattered among categories. CONCLUSION: These data represent the unprecedented results of a large reference laboratory providing clinical exome sequencing. We report, for the first time, the preferences of patients and families for the receipt of secondary findings based on clinical genome sequencing. Overwhelmingly, families undergoing exome sequencing opt for the disclosure of secondary findings. The data may have implications regarding the development of guidelines for secondary findings reporting among patients with severe and/or life-threatening disease undergoing clinical genomic sequencing.