Literature DB >> 28408614

Clinical Variant Classification: A Comparison of Public Databases and a Commercial Testing Laboratory.

William Gradishar1,2, KariAnne Johnson3,2, Krystal Brown3,2, Erin Mundt3,2, Susan Manley3,2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There is a growing move to consult public databases following receipt of a genetic test result from a clinical laboratory; however, the well-documented limitations of these databases call into question how often clinicians will encounter discordant variant classifications that may introduce uncertainty into patient management. Here, we evaluate discordance in BRCA1 and BRCA2 variant classifications between a single commercial testing laboratory and a public database commonly consulted in clinical practice.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: BRCA1 and BRCA2 variant classifications were obtained from ClinVar and compared with the classifications from a reference laboratory. Full concordance and discordance were determined for variants whose ClinVar entries were of the same pathogenicity (pathogenic, benign, or uncertain). Variants with conflicting ClinVar classifications were considered partially concordant if ≥1 of the listed classifications agreed with the reference laboratory classification.
RESULTS: Four thousand two hundred and fifty unique BRCA1 and BRCA2 variants were available for analysis. Overall, 73.2% of classifications were fully concordant and 12.3% were partially concordant. The remaining 14.5% of variants had discordant classifications, most of which had a definitive classification (pathogenic or benign) from the reference laboratory compared with an uncertain classification in ClinVar (14.0%).
CONCLUSION: Here, we show that discrepant classifications between a public database and single reference laboratory potentially account for 26.7% of variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2. The time and expertise required of clinicians to research these discordant classifications call into question the practicality of checking all test results against a database and suggest that discordant classifications should be interpreted with these limitations in mind. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: With the increasing use of clinical genetic testing for hereditary cancer risk, accurate variant classification is vital to ensuring appropriate medical management. There is a growing move to consult public databases following receipt of a genetic test result from a clinical laboratory; however, we show that up to 26.7% of variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 have discordant classifications between ClinVar and a reference laboratory. The findings presented in this paper serve as a note of caution regarding the utility of database consultation. © AlphaMed Press 2017.

Entities:  

Keywords:  BRCA1; BRCA2; Genetic testing; Public databases; Variant classification

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28408614      PMCID: PMC5507641          DOI: 10.1634/theoncologist.2016-0431

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Oncologist        ISSN: 1083-7159


  44 in total

1.  A comprehensive laboratory-based program for classification of variants of uncertain significance in hereditary cancer genes.

Authors:  J M Eggington; K R Bowles; K Moyes; S Manley; L Esterling; S Sizemore; E Rosenthal; A Theisen; J Saam; C Arnell; D Pruss; J Bennett; L A Burbidge; B Roa; R J Wenstrup
Journal:  Clin Genet       Date:  2013-12-20       Impact factor: 4.438

2.  High proportion of missense mutations of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes in Japanese breast cancer families.

Authors:  T Katagiri; F Kasumi; M Yoshimoto; T Nomizu; K Asaishi; R Abe; A Tsuchiya; M Sugano; S Takai; M Yoneda; T Fukutomi; K Nanba; M Makita; H Okazaki; K Hirata; M Okazaki; Y Furutsuma; Y Morishita; Y Iino; T Karino; H Ayabe; S Hara; T Kajiwara; S Houga; Y Miki
Journal:  J Hum Genet       Date:  1998       Impact factor: 3.172

3.  Variants of uncertain clinical significance as a result of BRCA1/2 testing: impact of an ambiguous breast cancer risk message.

Authors:  Sandra van Dijk; Christi J van Asperen; Catharina E Jacobi; Geraldine R Vink; Aad Tibben; Martijn H Breuning; Wilma Otten
Journal:  Genet Test       Date:  2004

4.  Comprehensive annotation of splice junctions supports pervasive alternative splicing at the BRCA1 locus: a report from the ENIGMA consortium.

Authors:  Mara Colombo; Marinus J Blok; Phillip Whiley; Marta Santamariña; Sara Gutiérrez-Enríquez; Atocha Romero; Pilar Garre; Alexandra Becker; Lindsay Denise Smith; Giovanna De Vecchi; Rita D Brandão; Demis Tserpelis; Melissa Brown; Ana Blanco; Sandra Bonache; Mireia Menéndez; Claude Houdayer; Claudia Foglia; James D Fackenthal; Diana Baralle; Barbara Wappenschmidt; Eduardo Díaz-Rubio; Trinidad Caldés; Logan Walker; Orland Díez; Ana Vega; Amanda B Spurdle; Paolo Radice; Miguel De La Hoya
Journal:  Hum Mol Genet       Date:  2014-02-25       Impact factor: 6.150

5.  BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in women from Shanghai China.

Authors:  Nicola M Suter; Roberta M Ray; Yong Wei Hu; Ming Gang Lin; Peggy Porter; Dao Li Gao; Renata E Zaucha; Lori M Iwasaki; Leah P Sabacan; Mariela C Langlois; David B Thomas; Elaine A Ostrander
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 4.254

6.  Deleterious- and disease-allele prevalence in healthy individuals: insights from current predictions, mutation databases, and population-scale resequencing.

Authors:  Yali Xue; Yuan Chen; Qasim Ayub; Ni Huang; Edward V Ball; Matthew Mort; Andrew D Phillips; Katy Shaw; Peter D Stenson; David N Cooper; Chris Tyler-Smith
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2012-12-07       Impact factor: 11.025

7.  Development and validation of a new algorithm for the reclassification of genetic variants identified in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes.

Authors:  Dmitry Pruss; Brian Morris; Elisha Hughes; Julie M Eggington; Lisa Esterling; Brandon S Robinson; Aric van Kan; Priscilla H Fernandes; Benjamin B Roa; Alexander Gutin; Richard J Wenstrup; Karla R Bowles
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2014-08-02       Impact factor: 4.872

8.  BRCA1 germ-line mutations and tumor characteristics in eastern Chinese women with familial breast cancer.

Authors:  Wenming Cao; Xiaojia Wang; Yun Gao; Hongjian Yang; Ji-Cheng Li
Journal:  Anat Rec (Hoboken)       Date:  2012-11-23       Impact factor: 2.064

9.  Functional characterization of BRCA1 gene variants by mini-gene splicing assay.

Authors:  Ane Y Steffensen; Mette Dandanell; Lars Jønson; Bent Ejlertsen; Anne-Marie Gerdes; Finn C Nielsen; Thomas vO Hansen
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2014-03-26       Impact factor: 4.246

10.  Targeted DNA Sequencing Detects Mutations Related to Susceptibility among Familial Non-medullary Thyroid Cancer.

Authors:  Yang Yu; Li Dong; Dapeng Li; Shaokun Chuai; Zhigang Wu; Xiangqian Zheng; Yanan Cheng; Lei Han; Jinpu Yu; Ming Gao
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2015-11-04       Impact factor: 4.379

View more
  15 in total

1.  ClinVar Miner: Demonstrating utility of a Web-based tool for viewing and filtering ClinVar data.

Authors:  Alex Henrie; Sarah E Hemphill; Nicole Ruiz-Schultz; Brandon Cushman; Marina T DiStefano; Danielle Azzariti; Steven M Harrison; Heidi L Rehm; Karen Eilbeck
Journal:  Hum Mutat       Date:  2018-06-21       Impact factor: 4.878

2.  Implementing the VMC Specification to Reduce Ambiguity in Genomic Variant Representation.

Authors:  Michael Watkins; Shawn Rynearson; Alex Henrie; Karen Eilbeck
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2020-03-04

3.  Scaling resolution of variant classification differences in ClinVar between 41 clinical laboratories through an outlier approach.

Authors:  Steven M Harrison; Jill S Dolinksy; Wenjie Chen; Christin D Collins; Soma Das; Joshua L Deignan; Kathryn B Garber; John Garcia; Olga Jarinova; Amy E Knight Johnson; Juha W Koskenvuo; Hane Lee; Rong Mao; Rebecca Mar-Heyming; Andrew S McFaddin; Krista Moyer; Narasimhan Nagan; Stefan Rentas; Avni B Santani; Eija H Seppälä; Brian H Shirts; Timothy Tidwell; Scott Topper; Lisa M Vincent; Kathy Vinette; Heidi L Rehm
Journal:  Hum Mutat       Date:  2018-11       Impact factor: 4.878

4.  A new era in the interpretation of human genomic variation.

Authors:  Heidi L Rehm
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2017-07-13       Impact factor: 8.822

5.  Role and clinical application of next-generation sequencing (NGS) for ovarian cancer.

Authors:  Myong Cheol Lim; Leslie M Randall
Journal:  J Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 4.401

Review 6.  Genomic medicine and data sharing.

Authors:  Sobia Raza; Alison Hall
Journal:  Br Med Bull       Date:  2017-09-01       Impact factor: 4.291

Review 7.  Inherited Cancer in the Age of Next-Generation Sequencing.

Authors:  Kristin S Price; Ashley Svenson; Elisabeth King; Kaylene Ready; Gabriel A Lazarin
Journal:  Biol Res Nurs       Date:  2018-01-11       Impact factor: 2.522

8.  Observed frequency and challenges of variant reclassification in a hereditary cancer clinic.

Authors:  Sarah Macklin; Nisha Durand; Paldeep Atwal; Stephanie Hines
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2017-12-07       Impact factor: 8.822

9.  ClinVar Is a Critical Resource to Advance Variant Interpretation.

Authors:  Heidi L Rehm; Steven M Harrison; Christa L Martin
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2017-08-29

10.  Impact of a Cancer Gene Variant Reclassification Program Over a 20-Year Period.

Authors:  Lisa Esterling; Ranjula Wijayatunge; Krystal Brown; Brian Morris; Elisha Hughes; Dmitry Pruss; Susan Manley; Karla R Bowles; Theodora S Ross
Journal:  JCO Precis Oncol       Date:  2020-08-27
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.