BACKGROUND: Genetic tests of the cancer predisposition genes BRCA1 and BRCA2 inform significant clinical decisions for both physicians and patients. Most uncovered variants are benign, and determining which few are pathogenic (disease-causing) is sometimes challenging and can potentially be inconsistent among laboratories. The ClinVar database makes de-identified clinical variant classifications from multiple laboratories publicly available for comparison and review, per recommendations of the American Medical Association (AMA), the American College of Medical Genetics (ACMG), the National Society for Genetic Counselors (NSGC), and other organizations. METHODS: Classifications of more than 2000 BRCA1/2 variants in ClinVar representing approximately 22,000 patients were dichotomized as clinically actionable or not actionable and compared across up to seven laboratories. The properties of these variants and classification differences were investigated in detail. RESULTS: Per-variant concordance was 98.5% (CI 97.9%-99.0%). All discordant variants were rare; thus, per patient concordance was estimated to be higher: 99.7%. ClinVar facilitated resolution of many of the discordant variants, and concordance increased to 99.0% per variant and 99.8% per patient when reclassified (but not yet resubmitted) variants and submission errors were addressed. Most of the remaining discordances appeared to involve either legitimate differences in expert judgment regarding particular scientific evidence, or were classifications that predated availability of important scientific evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Significant classification disagreements among the professional clinical laboratories represented in ClinVar are infrequent yet important. The unrestricted sharing of clinical genetic data allows detailed interlaboratory quality control and peer review, as exemplified by this study.
BACKGROUND: Genetic tests of the cancer predisposition genes BRCA1 and BRCA2 inform significant clinical decisions for both physicians and patients. Most uncovered variants are benign, and determining which few are pathogenic (disease-causing) is sometimes challenging and can potentially be inconsistent among laboratories. The ClinVar database makes de-identified clinical variant classifications from multiple laboratories publicly available for comparison and review, per recommendations of the American Medical Association (AMA), the American College of Medical Genetics (ACMG), the National Society for Genetic Counselors (NSGC), and other organizations. METHODS: Classifications of more than 2000 BRCA1/2 variants in ClinVar representing approximately 22,000 patients were dichotomized as clinically actionable or not actionable and compared across up to seven laboratories. The properties of these variants and classification differences were investigated in detail. RESULTS: Per-variant concordance was 98.5% (CI 97.9%-99.0%). All discordant variants were rare; thus, per patient concordance was estimated to be higher: 99.7%. ClinVar facilitated resolution of many of the discordant variants, and concordance increased to 99.0% per variant and 99.8% per patient when reclassified (but not yet resubmitted) variants and submission errors were addressed. Most of the remaining discordances appeared to involve either legitimate differences in expert judgment regarding particular scientific evidence, or were classifications that predated availability of important scientific evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Significant classification disagreements among the professional clinical laboratories represented in ClinVar are infrequent yet important. The unrestricted sharing of clinical genetic data allows detailed interlaboratory quality control and peer review, as exemplified by this study.
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
Authors: Joann G Elmore; Gary M Longton; Patricia A Carney; Berta M Geller; Tracy Onega; Anna N A Tosteson; Heidi D Nelson; Margaret S Pepe; Kimberly H Allison; Stuart J Schnitt; Frances P O'Malley; Donald L Weaver Journal: JAMA Date: 2015-03-17 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Stephen E Lincoln; Yuya Kobayashi; Michael J Anderson; Shan Yang; Andrea J Desmond; Meredith A Mills; Geoffrey B Nilsen; Kevin B Jacobs; Federico A Monzon; Allison W Kurian; James M Ford; Leif W Ellisen Journal: J Mol Diagn Date: 2015-07-22 Impact factor: 5.568
Authors: Heidi L Rehm; Jonathan S Berg; Lisa D Brooks; Carlos D Bustamante; James P Evans; Melissa J Landrum; David H Ledbetter; Donna R Maglott; Christa Lese Martin; Robert L Nussbaum; Sharon E Plon; Erin M Ramos; Stephen T Sherry; Michael S Watson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-05-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: R A George; T D Smith; S Callaghan; L Hardman; C Pierides; O Horaitis; M A Wouters; R G H Cotton Journal: J Med Genet Date: 2007-09-24 Impact factor: 6.318
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
Authors: Adam Auton; Lisa D Brooks; Richard M Durbin; Erik P Garrison; Hyun Min Kang; Jan O Korbel; Jonathan L Marchini; Shane McCarthy; Gil A McVean; Gonçalo R Abecasis Journal: Nature Date: 2015-10-01 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Sharon E Plon; Diana M Eccles; Douglas Easton; William D Foulkes; Maurizio Genuardi; Marc S Greenblatt; Frans B L Hogervorst; Nicoline Hoogerbrugge; Amanda B Spurdle; Sean V Tavtigian Journal: Hum Mutat Date: 2008-11 Impact factor: 4.878
Authors: Melissa J Landrum; Jennifer M Lee; George R Riley; Wonhee Jang; Wendy S Rubinstein; Deanna M Church; Donna R Maglott Journal: Nucleic Acids Res Date: 2013-11-14 Impact factor: 16.971
Authors: Laura M Amendola; Kathleen Muenzen; Leslie G Biesecker; Kevin M Bowling; Greg M Cooper; Michael O Dorschner; Catherine Driscoll; Ann Katherine M Foreman; Katie Golden-Grant; John M Greally; Lucia Hindorff; Dona Kanavy; Vaidehi Jobanputra; Jennifer J Johnston; Eimear E Kenny; Shannon McNulty; Priyanka Murali; Jeffrey Ou; Bradford C Powell; Heidi L Rehm; Bradley Rolf; Tamara S Roman; Jessica Van Ziffle; Saurav Guha; Avinash Abhyankar; David Crosslin; Eric Venner; Bo Yuan; Hana Zouk; Gail P Jarvik Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2020-10-26 Impact factor: 11.025
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
Authors: Brandie Heald; Heather Hampel; James Church; Beth Dudley; Michael J Hall; Maureen E Mork; Aparajita Singh; Elena Stoffel; Jessica Stoll; Y Nancy You; Matthew B Yurgelun; Sonia S Kupfer Journal: Fam Cancer Date: 2020-07 Impact factor: 2.375
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
Authors: Kristjan E Kaseniit; Elizabeth Collins; Christine Lo; Krista Moyer; Rebecca Mar-Heyming; Hyunseok P Kang; Dale Muzzey Journal: Clin Genet Date: 2019-07-01 Impact factor: 4.438
Authors: Shan Yang; Stephen E Lincoln; Yuya Kobayashi; Keith Nykamp; Robert L Nussbaum; Scott Topper Journal: Genet Med Date: 2017-06-01 Impact factor: 8.822