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.

Somatic cancer variant curation and harmonization through consensus minimum variant level data.

BACKGROUND: To truly achieve personalized medicine in oncology, it is critical to catalog and curate cancer sequence variants for their clinical relevance. The Somatic Working Group (WG) of the Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen), in cooperation with ClinVar and multiple cancer variant curation stakeholders, has developed a consensus set of minimal variant level data (MVLD). MVLD is a framework of standardized data elements to curate cancer variants for clinical utility. With implementation of MVLD standards, and in a working partnership with ClinVar, we aim to streamline the somatic variant curation efforts in the community and reduce redundancy and time burden for the interpretation of cancer variants in clinical practice. METHODS: We developed MVLD through a consensus approach by i) reviewing clinical actionability interpretations from institutions participating in the WG, ii) conducting extensive literature search of clinical somatic interpretation schemas, and iii) survey of cancer variant web portals. A forthcoming guideline on cancer variant interpretation, from the Association of Molecular Pathology (AMP), can be incorporated into MVLD. RESULTS: Along with harmonizing standardized terminology for allele interpretive and descriptive fields that are collected by many databases, the MVLD includes unique fields for cancer variants such as Biomarker Class, Therapeutic Context and Effect. In addition, MVLD includes recommendations for controlled semantics and ontologies. The Somatic WG is collaborating with ClinVar to evaluate MVLD use for somatic variant submissions. ClinVar is an open and centralized repository where sequencing laboratories can report summary-level variant data with clinical significance, and ClinVar accepts cancer variant data. CONCLUSIONS: We expect the use of the MVLD to streamline clinical interpretation of cancer variants, enhance interoperability among multiple redundant curation efforts, and increase submission of somatic variants to ClinVar, all of which will enhance translation to clinical oncology practice.

Expanded carrier screening in reproductive medicine-points to consider: a joint statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, National Society of Genetic Counselors, Perinatal Quality Foundation, and Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

The Perinatal Quality Foundation and the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics, in association with the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, and the National Society of Genetic Counselors, have collaborated to provide education for clinicians and laboratories regarding the use of expanded genetic carrier screening in reproductive medicine. This statement does not replace current screening guidelines, which are published by individual organizations to direct the practice of their constituents. As organizations develop practice guidelines for expanded carrier screening, further direction is likely. The current statement demonstrates an approach for health care providers and laboratories who wish to or who are currently offering expanded carrier screening to their patients.

ACMG recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing.

In clinical exome and genome sequencing, there is a potential for the recognition and reporting of incidental or secondary findings unrelated to the indication for ordering the sequencing but of medical value for patient care. The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) recently published a policy statement on clinical sequencing that emphasized the importance of alerting the patient to the possibility of such results in pretest patient discussions, clinical testing, and reporting of results. The ACMG appointed a Working Group on Incidental Findings in Clinical Exome and Genome Sequencing to make recommendations about responsible management of incidental findings when patients undergo exome or genome sequencing. This Working Group conducted a year-long consensus process, including an open forum at the 2012 Annual Meeting and review by outside experts, and produced recommendations that have been approved by the ACMG Board. Specific and detailed recommendations, and the background and rationale for these recommendations, are described herein. The ACMG recommends that laboratories performing clinical sequencing seek and report mutations of the specified classes or types in the genes listed here. This evaluation and reporting should be performed for all clinical germline (constitutional) exome and genome sequencing, including the "normal" of tumor-normal subtractive analyses in all subjects, irrespective of age but excluding fetal samples. We recognize that there are insufficient data on penetrance and clinical utility to fully support these recommendations, and we encourage the creation of an ongoing process for updating these recommendations at least annually as further data are collected.

Central review of cytogenetics is necessary for cooperative group correlative and clinical studies of adult acute leukemia: the Cancer and Leukemia Group B experience.

The Cancer and Leukemia Group B has performed central review of karyotypes submitted by institutional cytogenetics laboratories from patients with acute myeloid (AML) and acute lymphoblastic (ALL) leukemia since 1986. We assessed the role of central karyotype review in maintaining accurate, high quality cytogenetic data for clinical and translational studies using two criteria: the proportion of karyotypes rejected (i.e. inadequate), and, among accepted (i.e. adequate) cases, the proportion of karyotypes whose interpretation was changed on central karyotype review. We compared the first four years during which central karyotype review was performed with a recent 4-year period and found that the proportion of rejected samples decreased significantly for both AML and ALL. However, during the latter period, central karyotype reviews still found 8% of AML and 16% of ALL karyotypes inadequate. Among adequate cases, the karyotype was revised in 26% of both AML and ALL samples. Some revisions resulted in changing the patients' assignment to particular World Health Organization diagnostic categories and/or moving patients from one prognostic group to another. Overall, when both data on rejection rates and data on karyotype revisions made in accepted cases were considered together, 32% of AML and 38% of ALL samples submitted were either rejected or revised on central karyotype review during the recent 4-year period. These data underscore the necessity of continued central karyotype review in multi-institutional cooperative group studies.

Specific extra chromosomes occur in a modal number dependent pattern in pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia.

Children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) and high hyperdiploidy (>50 chromosomes) are considered to have a relatively good prognosis. The specific extra chromosomes are not random; extra copies of some chromosomes occur more frequently than those of others. We examined the extra chromosomes present in high hyperdiploid ALL to determine if there were a relation of the specific extra chromosomes and modal number (MN) and if the extra chromosomes present could differentiate high hyperdiploid from near-triploid and near-tetraploid cases. Karyotypes of 2,339 children with ALL and high hyperdiploidy at diagnosis showed a distinct nonrandom sequential pattern of gain for each chromosome as MN increased, with four groups of gain: chromosomes 21, X, 14, 6, 18, 4, 17, and 10 at MN 51-54; chromosomes 8, 5, 11, and 12 at MN 57-60; chromosomes 2, 3, 9,16, and 22 at MN 63-67; chromosomes 1, 7 13, 15, 19, and 20 at MN 68-79, and Y only at MN >or=80. Chromosomes gained at lower MN were retained as the MN increased. High hyperdiploid pediatric ALL results from a single abnormal mitotic division. Our results suggest that the abnormal mitosis involves specific chromosomes dependent on the number of chromosomes aberrantly distributed, raising provocative questions regarding the mitotic mechanism. The patterns of frequencies of tetrasomy of specific chromosomes differs from that of trisomies with the exception of chromosome 21, which is tetrasomic in a high frequency of cases at all MN. These results are consistent with different origins of high hyperdiploidy, near-trisomy, and near-tetrasomy.

Pretreatment cytogenetic abnormalities are predictive of induction success, cumulative incidence of relapse, and overall survival in adult patients with de novo acute myeloid leukemia: results from Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB 8461).

We analyzed prospectively 1213 adults with de novo acute myeloid leukemia (AML) to ascertain the prognostic impact of cytogenetic abnormalities on complete remission (CR) rate, 5-year cumulative incidence of relapse (CIR), and 5-year overall survival (OS). All patients received similar induction therapy. Median follow-up for surviving patients was 8.3 years. Nonprioritized cytogenetics distinguished t(8;21) and inv(16)/t(16;16) as conferring a significantly better prognosis than normal karyotype. Prognostic impact of many abnormalities could not be determined independently because of their association with complex karyotype. Neither complex karyotype nor secondary aberrations affected outcome of patients with t(8;21), inv(16)/t(16;16), or t(9;11). Among other patients, those with complex karyotypes had significantly worse outcomes than cytogenetically normal patients. Based on outcome for specific cytogenetic abnormalities and karyotype complexity, patients were divided into 3 risk groups: favorable (CR 88%, CIR 54%, OS 55%), intermediate (CR 67%, CIR 67%, OS 24%), and adverse (CR 32%, CIR 92%, OS 5%). Multivariate analyses confirmed the major contribution of cytogenetics to the probability of attaining CR, CIR, and OS. For the adverse-risk group, the probability of achieving CR was 4.0 and 11.9 times lower, the probability of relapse 3.0 and 4.4 times higher, and the risk of death 2.1 and 4.3 times higher than those for the intermediate and favorable groups, respectively. We conclude that although the prognostic impact of many recurring abnormalities has not been ascertained independently of complex karyotype, cytogenetics is among the most useful factors predicting attainment of CR, CIR, and long-term survival in adult AML.

Standards and guidelines for CFTR mutation testing.

One mission of the ACMG Laboratory Quality Assurance (QA) Committee is to develop standards and guidelines for clinical genetics laboratories, including cytogenetics, biochemical, and molecular genetics specialties. This document was developed under the auspices of the Molecular Subcommittee of the Laboratory QA Committee by the Cystic Fibrosis (CF) Working Group. It was placed on the "fast track" to address the preanalytical, analytical, and postanalytical quality assurance practices of laboratories currently providing testing for CF. Due to the anticipated impact of the ACMG recommendation statement endorsing carrier testing of reproductive couples, it was viewed that CF testing would increase in volume and that the number of laboratories offering CF testing would also likely increase. Therefore, this document was drafted with the premise of providing useful information gained by experienced laboratory directors who have provided such testing for many years. In many instances, "tips" are given. However, these guidelines are not to be interpreted as restrictive or the only approach but to provide a helpful guide. Certainly, appropriately trained and credentialed laboratory directors have flexibility to utilize various testing platforms and design testing strategies with considerable latitude. We felt that it was essential to include technique-specific guidelines of several current technologies commonly used in laboratories providing CF testing, since three of the four technologies discussed are available commercially and are widely utilized. We take the view that these technologies will change, and thus this document will change with future review.