Kyung Sun Park1, Eun Yoon Cho2, Seok Jin Nam3, Chang-Seok Ki4, Jong-Won Kim4. 1. SD Genomics Co., Ltd., Seoul, Korea. 2. Department of Pathology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. 3. Department of Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. 4. Department of Laboratory Medicine and Genetics, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate variants of uncertain significance (VUS) in BRCA1 and BRCA2, we assessed the multifactorial posterior probability of VUS in BRCA1 and BRCA2 and compared these analyses with interpretations according to the recently released American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) standards and guidelines. METHODS: The analysis involved 715 Korean patients with breast cancer. The multifactorial probability of a VUS was analyzed using the prior probability and combined likelihoods of personal and family history, the pathologic profile of the breast cancer, and co-occurrence with pathogenic variants. Results were compared with those obtained according to the ACMG standards/guidelines. RESULTS: Sixteen VUS from 51 BRCA1 VUS carriers and 28 VUS from 62 BRCA2 VUS carriers were analyzed. There was a slight agreement between the two analyses, with a kappa value of 0.14 (95% confidence interval (CI) = -0.34 to 0.62) for the BRCA1 VUS and a kappa value of 0.17 (95% CI = -0.10 to 0.49) for the BRCA2 VUS. CONCLUSION: We propose that genetic counseling should be based on the concordant results between these two analyses. When discrepancies are found, those variants are still considered VUS and careful counseling should be provided.Genet Med 18 12, 1250-1257.
PURPOSE: To investigate variants of uncertain significance (VUS) in BRCA1 and BRCA2, we assessed the multifactorial posterior probability of VUS in BRCA1 and BRCA2 and compared these analyses with interpretations according to the recently released American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) standards and guidelines. METHODS: The analysis involved 715 Korean patients with breast cancer. The multifactorial probability of a VUS was analyzed using the prior probability and combined likelihoods of personal and family history, the pathologic profile of the breast cancer, and co-occurrence with pathogenic variants. Results were compared with those obtained according to the ACMG standards/guidelines. RESULTS: Sixteen VUS from 51 BRCA1 VUS carriers and 28 VUS from 62 BRCA2 VUS carriers were analyzed. There was a slight agreement between the two analyses, with a kappa value of 0.14 (95% confidence interval (CI) = -0.34 to 0.62) for the BRCA1 VUS and a kappa value of 0.17 (95% CI = -0.10 to 0.49) for the BRCA2 VUS. CONCLUSION: We propose that genetic counseling should be based on the concordant results between these two analyses. When discrepancies are found, those variants are still considered VUS and careful counseling should be provided.Genet Med 18 12, 1250-1257.
Authors: Mev Dominguez-Valentin; Sigve Nakken; Hélène Tubeuf; Daniel Vodak; Per Olaf Ekstrøm; Anke M Nissen; Monika Morak; Elke Holinski-Feder; Alexandra Martins; Pål Møller; Eivind Hovig Journal: Fam Cancer Date: 2018-01 Impact factor: 2.375
Authors: Ji Soo Park; Eun Ji Nam; Hyung Seok Park; Jung Woo Han; Jung-Yun Lee; Jieun Kim; Tae Il Kim; Seung-Tae Lee Journal: Cancer Res Treat Date: 2017-01-17 Impact factor: 4.679
Authors: Kelly A Hirko; Gabrielle Rocque; Erica Reasor; Ammanuel Taye; Alex Daly; Ramsey I Cutress; Ellen R Copson; Dae-Won Lee; Kyung-Hun Lee; Seock-Ah Im; Yeon Hee Park Journal: BMC Med Date: 2022-02-11 Impact factor: 8.775
Authors: Hyung Seok Park; Jai Min Ryu; Ji Soo Park; Seock-Ah Im; So-Youn Jung; Eun-Kyu Kim; Woo-Chan Park; Jun Won Min; Jeeyeon Lee; Ji Young You; Jeong Eon Lee; Sung-Won Kim Journal: Cancer Res Treat Date: 2020-01-28 Impact factor: 4.679