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.

VarSight: prioritizing clinically reported variants with binary classification algorithms.

BACKGROUND: When applying genomic medicine to a rare disease patient, the primary goal is to identify one or more genomic variants that may explain the patient's phenotypes. Typically, this is done through annotation, filtering, and then prioritization of variants for manual curation. However, prioritization of variants in rare disease patients remains a challenging task due to the high degree of variability in phenotype presentation and molecular source of disease. Thus, methods that can identify and/or prioritize variants to be clinically reported in the presence of such variability are of critical importance. METHODS: We tested the application of classification algorithms that ingest variant annotations along with phenotype information for predicting whether a variant will ultimately be clinically reported and returned to a patient. To test the classifiers, we performed a retrospective study on variants that were clinically reported to 237 patients in the Undiagnosed Diseases Network. RESULTS: We treated the classifiers as variant prioritization systems and compared them to four variant prioritization algorithms and two single-measure controls. We showed that the trained classifiers outperformed all other tested methods with the best classifiers ranking 72% of all reported variants and 94% of reported pathogenic variants in the top 20. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated how freely available binary classification algorithms can be used to prioritize variants even in the presence of real-world variability. Furthermore, these classifiers outperformed all other tested methods, suggesting that they may be well suited for working with real rare disease patient datasets.