Standard operating procedure for curation and clinical interpretation of variants in cancer.

Manually curated variant knowledgebases and their associated knowledge models are serving an increasingly important role in distributing and interpreting variants in cancer. These knowledgebases vary in their level of public accessibility, and the complexity of the models used to capture clinical knowledge. CIViC (Clinical Interpretation of Variants in Cancer - www.civicdb.org) is a fully open, free-to-use cancer variant interpretation knowledgebase that incorporates highly detailed curation of evidence obtained from peer-reviewed publications and meeting abstracts, and currently holds over 6300 Evidence Items for over 2300 variants derived from over 400 genes. CIViC has seen increased adoption by, and also undertaken collaboration with, a wide range of users and organizations involved in research. To enhance CIViC's clinical value, regular submission to the ClinVar database and pursuit of other regulatory approvals is necessary. For this reason, a formal peer reviewed curation guideline and discussion of the underlying principles of curation is needed. We present here the CIViC knowledge model, standard operating procedures (SOP) for variant curation, and detailed examples to support community-driven curation of cancer variants.

Open-Sourced CIViC Annotation Pipeline to Identify and Annotate Clinically Relevant Variants Using Single-Molecule Molecular Inversion Probes.

PURPOSE: Clinical targeted sequencing panels are important for identifying actionable variants for patients with cancer; however, existing approaches do not provide transparent and rationally designed clinical panels to accommodate the rapidly growing knowledge within oncology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used the Clinical Interpretations of Variants in Cancer (CIViC) database to develop an Open-Sourced CIViC Annotation Pipeline (OpenCAP). OpenCAP provides methods to identify variants within the CIViC database, build probes for variant capture, use probes on prospective samples, and link somatic variants to CIViC clinical relevance statements. OpenCAP was tested using a single-molecule molecular inversion probe (smMIP) capture design on 27 cancer samples from 5 tumor types. In total, 2,027 smMIPs were designed to target 111 eligible CIViC variants (61.5 kb of genomic space). RESULTS: When compared with orthogonal sequencing, CIViC smMIP sequencing demonstrated a 95% sensitivity for variant detection (n = 61 of 64 variants). Variant allele frequencies for variants identified on both sequencing platforms were highly concordant (Pearson's r = 0.885; n = 61 variants). Moreover, for individuals with paired tumor and normal samples (n = 12), 182 clinically relevant variants missed by orthogonal sequencing were discovered by CIViC smMIP sequencing. CONCLUSION: The OpenCAP design paradigm demonstrates the utility of an open-source and open-access database built on attendant community contributions with peer-reviewed interpretations. Use of a public repository for variant identification, probe development, and variant interpretation provides a transparent approach to build dynamic next-generation sequencing-based oncology panels.

Standard operating procedure for somatic variant refinement of sequencing data with paired tumor and normal samples.

PURPOSE: Following automated variant calling, manual review of aligned read sequences is required to identify a high-quality list of somatic variants. Despite widespread use in analyzing sequence data, methods to standardize manual review have not been described, resulting in high inter- and intralab variability. METHODS: This manual review standard operating procedure (SOP) consists of methods to annotate variants with four different calls and 19 tags. The calls indicate a reviewer's confidence in each variant and the tags indicate commonly observed sequencing patterns and artifacts that inform the manual review call. Four individuals were asked to classify variants prior to, and after, reading the SOP and accuracy was assessed by comparing reviewer calls with orthogonal validation sequencing. RESULTS: After reading the SOP, average accuracy in somatic variant identification increased by 16.7% (p value = 0.0298) and average interreviewer agreement increased by 12.7% (p value < 0.001). Manual review conducted after reading the SOP did not significantly increase reviewer time. CONCLUSION: This SOP supports and enhances manual somatic variant detection by improving reviewer accuracy while reducing the interreviewer variability for variant calling and annotation.