Using the ACMG/AMP framework to capture evidence related to predicted and observed impact on splicing: Recommendations from the ClinGen SVI Splicing Subgroup.

The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG)/Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP) framework for classifying variants uses six evidence categories related to the splicing potential of variants: PVS1, PS3, PP3, BS3, BP4, and BP7. However, the lack of guidance on how to apply such codes has contributed to variation in the specifications developed by different Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) Variant Curation Expert Panels. The ClinGen Sequence Variant Interpretation Splicing Subgroup was established to refine recommendations for applying ACMG/AMP codes relating to splicing data and computational predictions. We utilized empirically derived splicing evidence to (1) determine the evidence weighting of splicing-related data and appropriate criteria code selection for general use, (2) outline a process for integrating splicing-related considerations when developing a gene-specific PVS1 decision tree, and (3) exemplify methodology to calibrate splice prediction tools. We propose repurposing the PVS1_Strength code to capture splicing assay data that provide experimental evidence for variants resulting in RNA transcript(s) with loss of function. Conversely, BP7 may be used to capture RNA results demonstrating no splicing impact for intronic and synonymous variants. We propose that the PS3/BS3 codes are applied only for well-established assays that measure functional impact not directly captured by RNA-splicing assays. We recommend the application of PS1 based on similarity of predicted RNA-splicing effects for a variant under assessment in comparison with a known pathogenic variant. The recommendations and approaches for consideration and evaluation of RNA-assay evidence described aim to help standardize variant pathogenicity classification processes when interpreting splicing-based evidence.

Gene-specific ACMG/AMP classification criteria for germline APC variants: Recommendations from the ClinGen InSiGHT Hereditary Colorectal Cancer/Polyposis Variant Curation Expert Panel.

PURPOSE: The Hereditary Colorectal Cancer/Polyposis Variant Curation Expert Panel (VCEP) was established by the International Society for Gastrointestinal Hereditary Tumours and the Clinical Genome Resource, who set out to develop recommendations for the interpretation of germline APC variants underlying Familial Adenomatous Polyposis, the most frequent hereditary polyposis syndrome. METHODS: Through a rigorous process of database analysis, literature review, and expert elicitation, the APC VCEP derived gene-specific modifications to the ACMG/AMP (American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and Association for Molecular Pathology) variant classification guidelines and validated such criteria through the pilot classification of 58 variants. RESULTS: The APC-specific criteria represented gene- and disease-informed specifications, including a quantitative approach to allele frequency thresholds, a stepwise decision tool for truncating variants, and semiquantitative evaluations of experimental and clinical data. Using the APC-specific criteria, 47% (27/58) of pilot variants were reclassified including 14 previous variants of uncertain significance (VUS). CONCLUSION: The APC-specific ACMG/AMP criteria preserved the classification of well-characterized variants on ClinVar while substantially reducing the number of VUS by 56% (14/25). Moving forward, the APC VCEP will continue to interpret prioritized lists of VUS, the results of which will represent the most authoritative variant classification for widespread clinical use.

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.

Clinical Genetics Lacks Standard Definitions and Protocols for the Collection and Use of Diversity Measures.

Genetics researchers and clinical professionals rely on diversity measures such as race, ethnicity, and ancestry (REA) to stratify study participants and patients for a variety of applications in research and precision medicine. However, there are no comprehensive, widely accepted standards or guidelines for collecting and using such data in clinical genetics practice. Two NIH-funded research consortia, the Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) and Clinical Sequencing Evidence-generating Research (CSER), have partnered to address this issue and report how REA are currently collected, conceptualized, and used. Surveying clinical genetics professionals and researchers (n = 448), we found heterogeneity in the way REA are perceived, defined, and measured, with variation in the perceived importance of REA in both clinical and research settings. The majority of respondents (>55%) felt that REA are at least somewhat important for clinical variant interpretation, ordering genetic tests, and communicating results to patients. However, there was no consensus on the relevance of REA, including how each of these measures should be used in different scenarios and what information they can convey in the context of human genetics. A lack of common definitions and applications of REA across the precision medicine pipeline may contribute to inconsistencies in data collection, missing or inaccurate classifications, and misleading or inconclusive results. Thus, our findings support the need for standardization and harmonization of REA data collection and use in clinical genetics and precision health research.

Specifications of the ACMG/AMP guidelines for ACADVL variant interpretation.

Very long-chain acyl-CoA dehydrogenase (VLCAD) deficiency (VLCADD) is a relatively common inborn error of metabolism, but due to difficulty in accurately predicting affected status through newborn screening, molecular confirmation of the causative variants by sequencing of the ACADVL gene is necessary. Although the ACMG/AMP guidelines have helped standardize variant classification, ACADVL variant classification remains disparate due to a phenotype that can be nonspecific, the possibility of variants that produce late-onset disease, and relatively high carrier frequency, amongst other challenges. Therefore, an ACADVL-specific variant curation expert panel (VCEP) was created to facilitate the specification of the ACMG/AMP guidelines for VLCADD. We expect these guidelines to help streamline, increase concordance, and expedite the classification of ACADVL variants.

Variant Classification for Pompe disease; ACMG/AMP specifications from the ClinGen Lysosomal Diseases Variant Curation Expert Panel.

Accurate determination of the clinical significance of genetic variants is critical to the integration of genomics in medicine. To facilitate this process, the NIH-funded Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) has assembled Variant Curation Expert Panels (VCEPs), groups of experts and biocurators which provide gene- and disease- specifications to the American College of Medical Genetics & Genomics and Association for Molecular Pathology's (ACMG/AMP) variation classification guidelines. With the goal of classifying the clinical significance of GAA variants in Pompe disease (Glycogen storage disease, type II), the ClinGen Lysosomal Diseases (LD) VCEP has specified the ACMG/AMP criteria for GAA. Variant classification can play an important role in confirming the diagnosis of Pompe disease as well as in the identification of carriers. Furthermore, since the inclusion of Pompe disease on the Recommended Uniform Screening Panel (RUSP) for newborns in the USA in 2015, the addition of molecular genetic testing has become an important component in the interpretation of newborn screening results, particularly for asymptomatic individuals. To date, the LD VCEP has submitted classifications and supporting data on 243 GAA variants to public databases, specifically ClinVar and the ClinGen Evidence Repository. Here, we describe the ACMG/AMP criteria specification process for GAA, an update of the GAA-specific variant classification guidelines, and comparison of the ClinGen LD VCEP's GAA variant classifications with variant classifications submitted to ClinVar. The LD VCEP has added to the publicly available knowledge on the pathogenicity of variants in GAA by increasing the number of expert-curated GAA variants present in ClinVar, and aids in resolving conflicting classifications and variants of uncertain clinical significance.

Adapting the ACMG/AMP variant classification framework: A perspective from the ClinGen Hemoglobinopathy Variant Curation Expert Panel.

Accurate and consistent interpretation of sequence variants is integral to the delivery of safe and reliable diagnostic genetic services. To standardize the interpretation process, in 2015, the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) and the Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP) published a joint guideline based on a set of shared standards for the classification of variants in Mendelian diseases. The generality of these standards and their subjective interpretation between laboratories has prompted efforts to reduce discordance of variant classifications, with a focus on the expert specification of the ACMG/AMP guidelines for individual genes or diseases. Herein, we describe our experience as a ClinGen Variant Curation Expert Panel to adapt the ACMG/AMP criteria for the classification of variants in three globin genes (HBB, HBA2, and HBA1) related to recessively inherited hemoglobinopathies, including five evidence categories, as use cases demonstrating the process of specification and the underlying rationale.

The Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) Familial Hypercholesterolemia Variant Curation Expert Panel consensus guidelines for LDLR variant classification.

PURPOSE: In 2015, the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) and the Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP) published consensus standardized guidelines for sequence-level variant classification in Mendelian disorders. To increase accuracy and consistency, the Clinical Genome Resource Familial Hypercholesterolemia (FH) Variant Curation Expert Panel was tasked with optimizing the existing ACMG/AMP framework for disease-specific classification in FH. In this study, we provide consensus recommendations for the most common FH-associated gene, LDLR, where >2300 unique FH-associated variants have been identified. METHODS: The multidisciplinary FH Variant Curation Expert Panel met in person and through frequent emails and conference calls to develop LDLR-specific modifications of ACMG/AMP guidelines. Through iteration, pilot testing, debate, and commentary, consensus among experts was reached. RESULTS: The consensus LDLR variant modifications to existing ACMG/AMP guidelines include (1) alteration of population frequency thresholds, (2) delineation of loss-of-function variant types, (3) functional study criteria specifications, (4) cosegregation criteria specifications, and (5) specific use and thresholds for in silico prediction tools, among others. CONCLUSION: Establishment of these guidelines as the new standard in the clinical laboratory setting will result in a more evidence-based, harmonized method for LDLR variant classification worldwide, thereby improving the care of patients with FH.

Clinical validity assessment of genes frequently tested on intellectual disability/autism sequencing panels.

PURPOSE: Neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs), such as intellectual disability (ID) and autism spectrum disorder (ASD), exhibit genetic and phenotypic heterogeneity, making them difficult to differentiate without a molecular diagnosis. The Clinical Genome Resource Intellectual Disability/Autism Gene Curation Expert Panel (GCEP) uses systematic curation to distinguish ID/ASD genes that are appropriate for clinical testing (ie, with substantial evidence supporting their relationship to disease) from those that are not. METHODS: Using the Clinical Genome Resource gene-disease validity curation framework, the ID/Autism GCEP classified genes frequently included on clinical ID/ASD testing panels as Definitive, Strong, Moderate, Limited, Disputed, Refuted, or No Known Disease Relationship. RESULTS: As of September 2021, 156 gene-disease pairs have been evaluated. Although most (75%) were determined to have definitive roles in NDDs, 22 (14%) genes evaluated had either Limited or Disputed evidence. Such genes are currently not recommended for use in clinical testing owing to the limited ability to assess the effect of identified variants. CONCLUSION: Our understanding of gene-disease relationships evolves over time; new relationships are discovered and previously-held conclusions may be questioned. Without periodic re-examination, inaccurate gene-disease claims may be perpetuated. The ID/Autism GCEP will continue to evaluate these claims to improve diagnosis and clinical care for NDDs.

Evaluating the impact of in silico predictors on clinical variant classification.

PURPOSE: According to the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics/Association of Medical Pathology (ACMG/AMP) guidelines, in silico evidence is applied at the supporting strength level for pathogenic (PP3) and benign (BP4) evidence. Although PP3 is commonly used, less is known about the effect of these criteria on variant classification outcomes. METHODS: A total of 727 missense variants curated by Clinical Genome Resource expert groups were analyzed to determine how often PP3 and BP4 were applied and their impact on variant classification. The ACMG/AMP categorical system of variant classification was compared with a quantitative point-based system. The pathogenicity likelihood ratios of REVEL, VEST, FATHMM, and MPC were calibrated using a gold standard set of 237 pathogenic and benign variants (classified independent of the PP3/BP4 criteria). RESULTS: The PP3 and BP4 criteria were applied by Variant Curation Expert Panels to 55% of missense variants. Application of those criteria changed the classification of 15% of missense variants for which either criterion was applied. The point-based system resolved borderline classifications. REVEL and VEST performed best at a strength level consistent with moderate evidence. CONCLUSION: We show that in silico criteria are commonly applied and often affect the final variant classifications. When appropriate thresholds for in silico predictors are established, our results show that PP3 and BP4 can be used at a moderate strength.

Cancer SIGVAR: A semiautomated interpretation tool for germline variants of hereditary cancer-related genes.

Cancer is one of the most important health issues globally and the accuracy of interpretation of cancer-related variants is critical for the clinical management of hereditary cancer. ClinGen Sequence Variant Interpretation Working Groups have developed many adaptations of American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association of Molecular Pathologists guidelines to improve the consistency of interpretation. We combined the most recent adaptations to expand the number of the criteria from 28 to 48 and developed a tool called Cancer SIGVAR to help genetic counselors interpret the clinical significance of cancer germline variants. Our tool can accept VCF files as input and realize fully automated interpretation based on 21 criteria and semiautomated interpretation based on 48 criteria. We validated the performance of our tool with the ClinVar and CLINVITAE benchmark databases, achieving an average consistency for pathogenic and benign assessment up to 93.71% and 79.38%, respectively. We compared Cancer SIGVAR with two similar tools, InterVar and PathoMAN, and analyzed the main differences in criteria and implementation. Furthermore, we selected 911 variants from another two in-house benchmark databases, and semiautomated interpretation reached an average classification consistency of 98.35%. Our findings highlight the need to optimize automated interpretation tools based on constantly updated guidelines. Cancer SIGVAR is publicly available at http://cancersigvar.bgi.com/.

An International, Multicentered, Evidence-Based Reappraisal of Genes Reported to Cause Congenital Long QT Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Long QT syndrome (LQTS) is the first described and most common inherited arrhythmia. Over the last 25 years, multiple genes have been reported to cause this condition and are routinely tested in patients. Because of dramatic changes in our understanding of human genetic variation, reappraisal of reported genetic causes for LQTS is required. METHODS: Utilizing an evidence-based framework, 3 gene curation teams blinded to each other's work scored the level of evidence for 17 genes reported to cause LQTS. A Clinical Domain Channelopathy Working Group provided a final classification of these genes for causation of LQTS after assessment of the evidence scored by the independent curation teams. RESULTS: Of 17 genes reported as being causative for LQTS, 9 (AKAP9, ANK2, CAV3, KCNE1, KCNE2, KCNJ2, KCNJ5, SCN4B, SNTA1) were classified as having limited or disputed evidence as LQTS-causative genes. Only 3 genes (KCNQ1, KCNH2, SCN5A) were curated as definitive genes for typical LQTS. Another 4 genes (CALM1, CALM2, CALM3, TRDN) were found to have strong or definitive evidence for causality in LQTS with atypical features, including neonatal atrioventricular block. The remaining gene (CACNA1C) had moderate level evidence for causing LQTS. CONCLUSIONS: More than half of the genes reported as causing LQTS have limited or disputed evidence to support their disease causation. Genetic variants in these genes should not be used for clinical decision-making, unless accompanied by new and sufficient genetic evidence. The findings of insufficient evidence to support gene-disease associations may extend to other disciplines of medicine and warrants a contemporary evidence-based evaluation for previously reported disease-causing genes to ensure their appropriate use in precision medicine.

AutoPVS1: An automatic classification tool for PVS1 interpretation of null variants.

Null variants are prevalent within the human genome, and their accurate interpretation is critical for clinical management. In 2018, the ClinGen Sequence Variant Interpretation (SVI) Working Group refined the only criterion with a very strong pathogenicity rating (PVS1). To streamline PVS1 interpretation, we have developed an automatic classification tool with a graphical user interface called AutoPVS1. The performance of AutoPVS1 was assessed using 56 variants manually curated by the ClinGen's SVI Working Group; it achieved an interpretation concordance of 93% (52/56). A further analysis of 28,586 putative loss-of-function variants by AutoPVS1 demonstrated that at least 27.7% of them do not reach a very strong strength level, 17.5% because of variant-specific issues and 10.2% due to disease mechanism considerations. Notably, 41.0% (1,936/4,717) of splicing variants were assigned a decreased preliminary PVS1 strength level, a significantly greater fraction than in frameshift variants (13.2%) and nonsense variants (10.8%). Our results reinforce the necessity of considering variant-specific issues and disease mechanisms in variant interpretation and demonstrate that AutoPVS1 meets an urgent need by enabling biocurators to easily assign accurate, reliable and reproducible PVS1 strength levels in the process of variant interpretation. AutoPVS1 is publicly available at http://autopvs1.genetics.bgi.com/.

Clinical validity of expanded carrier screening: Evaluating the gene-disease relationship in more than 200 conditions.

Clinical guidelines consider expanded carrier screening (ECS) to be an acceptable method of carrier screening. However, broader guideline support and payer adoption require evidence for associations between the genes on ECS panels and the conditions for which they aim to identify carriers. We applied a standardized framework for evaluation of gene-disease association to assess the clinical validity of conditions screened by ECS panels. The Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) gene curation framework was used to assess genetic and experimental evidence of associations between 208 genes and conditions screened on two commercial ECS panels. Twenty-one conditions were previously classified by ClinGen, and the remaining 187 were evaluated by curation teams at two laboratories. To ensure consistent application of the framework across the laboratories, concordance was evaluated on a subset of conditions. All 208 evaluated conditions met the evidence threshold for supporting a gene-disease association. Furthermore, 203 of 208 (98%) achieved the strongest ("Definitive") level of gene-disease association. All conditions evaluated by both commercial laboratories were similarly classified. Assessment using the ClinGen standardized framework revealed strong evidence of gene-disease association for conditions on two ECS panels. This result establishes the disease-level clinical validity of the panels considered herein.

Evaluating the Clinical Validity of Gene-Disease Associations: An Evidence-Based Framework Developed by the Clinical Genome Resource.

With advances in genomic sequencing technology, the number of reported gene-disease relationships has rapidly expanded. However, the evidence supporting these claims varies widely, confounding accurate evaluation of genomic variation in a clinical setting. Despite the critical need to differentiate clinically valid relationships from less well-substantiated relationships, standard guidelines for such evaluation do not currently exist. The NIH-funded Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) has developed a framework to define and evaluate the clinical validity of gene-disease pairs across a variety of Mendelian disorders. In this manuscript we describe a proposed framework to evaluate relevant genetic and experimental evidence supporting or contradicting a gene-disease relationship and the subsequent validation of this framework using a set of representative gene-disease pairs. The framework provides a semiquantitative measurement for the strength of evidence of a gene-disease relationship that correlates to a qualitative classification: "Definitive," "Strong," "Moderate," "Limited," "No Reported Evidence," or "Conflicting Evidence." Within the ClinGen structure, classifications derived with this framework are reviewed and confirmed or adjusted based on clinical expertise of appropriate disease experts. Detailed guidance for utilizing this framework and access to the curation interface is available on our website. This evidence-based, systematic method to assess the strength of gene-disease relationships will facilitate more knowledgeable utilization of genomic variants in clinical and research settings.

Development of Clinical Domain Working Groups for the Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen): lessons learned and plans for the future.

The Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) is supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to develop expertly curated and freely accessible resources defining the clinical relevance of genes and variants for use in precision medicine and research. To facilitate expert input, ClinGen has formed Clinical Domain Working Groups (CDWGs) to leverage the collective knowledge of clinicians, laboratory diagnosticians, and researchers. In the initial phase of ClinGen, CDWGs were launched in the cardiovascular, hereditary cancer, and inborn errors of metabolism clinical fields. These early CDWGs established the infrastructure necessary to implement standardized processes developed or adopted by ClinGen working groups for the interpretation of gene-disease associations and variant pathogenicity, and provided a sustainable model for the formation of future disease-focused curation groups. The establishment of CDWGs requires recruitment of international experts to broadly represent the interests of their field and ensure that assertions made are reliable and widely accepted. Building on the successes, challenges, and trade-offs made in establishing the original CDWGs, ClinGen has developed standard operating procedures for the development of CDWGs in new clinical domains, while maximizing efforts to scale up curation and facilitate involvement of external groups who wish to utilize ClinGen methods and infrastructure for expert curation.

Determining the clinical validity of hereditary colorectal cancer and polyposis susceptibility genes using the Clinical Genome Resource Clinical Validity Framework.

PURPOSE: Gene-disease associations implicated in hereditary colorectal cancer and polyposis susceptibility were evaluated using the ClinGen Clinical Validity framework. METHODS: Forty-two gene-disease pairs were assessed for strength of evidence supporting an association with hereditary colorectal cancer and/or polyposis. Genetic and experimental evidence supporting each gene-disease relationship was curated independently by two trained biocurators. Evidence was reviewed with experts and assigned a final clinical validity classification. RESULTS: Of all gene-disease pairs evaluated, 14/42 (33.3%) were Definitive, 1/42 (2.4%) were Strong, 6/42 (14.3%) were Moderate, 18/42 (42.9%) were Limited, and 3/42 (7.1%) were either No Reported Evidence, Disputed, or Refuted. Of panels in the National Institutes of Health Genetic Testing Registry, 4/26 (~15.4%) contain genes with Limited clinical evidence. CONCLUSION: Clinicians and laboratory diagnosticians should note that <60% of the genes on clinically available panels have Strong or Definitive evidence of association with hereditary colon cancer or polyposis, and >40% have only Moderate, Limited, Disputed, or Refuted evidence. Continuing to expand the structured assessment of the clinical relevance of genes listed on hereditary cancer testing panels will help clinicians and diagnostic laboratories focus the communication of genetic testing results on clinically significant genes.

Development of a consent resource for genomic data sharing in the clinical setting.

PURPOSE: Data sharing between clinicians, laboratories, and patients is essential for improvements in genomic medicine, but obtaining consent for individual-level data sharing is often hindered by a lack of time and resources. To address this issue, the Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) developed tools to facilitate consent, including a one-page consent form and online supplemental video with information on key topics, such as risks and benefits of data sharing. METHODS: To determine whether the consent form and video accurately conveyed key data sharing concepts, we surveyed 5,162 members of the general public. We measured comprehension at baseline, after reading the form and watching the video. Additionally, we assessed participants' attitudes toward genomic data sharing. RESULTS: Participants' performance on comprehension questions significantly improved over baseline after reading the form and continued to improve after watching the video. CONCLUSION: Results suggest reading the form alone provided participants with important knowledge regarding broad data sharing, and watching the video allowed for broader comprehension. These materials are now available at http://www.clinicalgenome.org/share . These resources will provide patients a straightforward way to share their genetic and health information, and improve the scientific community's access to data generated through routine healthcare.

ClinGen expert clinical validity curation of 164 hearing loss gene-disease pairs.

PURPOSE: Proper interpretation of genomic variants is critical to successful medical decision making based on genetic testing results. A fundamental prerequisite to accurate variant interpretation is the clear understanding of the clinical validity of gene-disease relationships. The Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) has developed a semiquantitative framework to assign clinical validity to gene-disease relationships. METHODS: The ClinGen Hearing Loss Gene Curation Expert Panel (HL GCEP) uses this framework to perform evidence-based curations of genes present on testing panels from 17 clinical laboratories in the Genetic Testing Registry. The HL GCEP curated and reviewed 142 genes and 164 gene-disease pairs, including 105 nonsyndromic and 59 syndromic forms of hearing loss. RESULTS: The final outcome included 82 Definitive (50%), 12 Strong (7%), 25 Moderate (15%), 32 Limited (20%), 10 Disputed (6%), and 3 Refuted (2%) classifications. The summary of each curation is date stamped with the HL GCEP approval, is live, and will be kept up-to-date on the ClinGen website ( https://search.clinicalgenome.org/kb/gene-validity ). CONCLUSION: This gene curation approach serves to optimize the clinical sensitivity of genetic testing while reducing the rate of uncertain or ambiguous test results caused by the interrogation of genes with insufficient evidence of a disease link.

Clinical validity assessment of genes frequently tested on hereditary breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility sequencing panels.

PURPOSE: Several genes on hereditary breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility test panels have not been systematically examined for strength of association with disease. We employed the Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) clinical validity framework to assess the strength of evidence between selected genes and breast or ovarian cancer. METHODS: Thirty-one genes offered on cancer panel testing were selected for evaluation. The strength of gene-disease relationship was systematically evaluated and a clinical validity classification of either Definitive, Strong, Moderate, Limited, Refuted, Disputed, or No Reported Evidence was assigned. RESULTS: Definitive clinical validity classifications were made for 10/31 and 10/32 gene-disease pairs for breast and ovarian cancer respectively. Two genes had a Moderate classification whereas, 6/31 and 6/32 genes had Limited classifications for breast and ovarian cancer respectively. Contradictory evidence resulted in Disputed or Refuted assertions for 9/31 genes for breast and 4/32 genes for ovarian cancer. No Reported Evidence of disease association was asserted for 5/31 genes for breast and 11/32 for ovarian cancer. CONCLUSION: Evaluation of gene-disease association using the ClinGen clinical validity framework revealed a wide range of classifications. This information should aid laboratories in tailoring appropriate gene panels and assist health-care providers in interpreting results from panel testing.