Literature DB >> 29618041

Prospective Study of Cancer Genetic Variants: Variation in Rate of Reclassification by Ancestry.

Thomas P Slavin1, Lily R Van Tongeren1, Carolyn E Behrendt, Ilana Solomon1, Christina Rybak1,2, Bita Nehoray1, Lili Kuzmich1, Mariana Niell-Swiller1,3, Kathleen R Blazer1, Shu Tao4, Kai Yang1, Julie O Culver5, Sharon Sand1, Danielle Castillo1, Josef Herzog1, Stacy W Gray1, Jeffrey N Weitzel1.   

Abstract

Background: In germline genetic testing, variants from understudied ancestries have been disproportionately classified as being of uncertain significance. We hypothesized that the rate of variant reclassification likewise differs by ancestry.
Methods: Nonbenign variants in actionable genes were collected from consenting subjects undergoing genetic testing at two Southern California sites from September 1996 through December 2016. Variant reclassifications were recorded as they were received, until February 2017 or reclassification to benign. Excluding duplicate variants (same ancestry, laboratory, classification), generalized linear models for the hereditary breast cancer genes (BRCA1/2) and other variants investigated whether rate of reclassification differed for seven categories of ancestry compared with non-Hispanic European. Models took into account laboratory, year, gene, sex, and current classification (handled as a time-dependent covariate) and were adjusted for multiple hypothesis testing.
Results: Among 1483 nonbenign variants, 693 (46.7%) involved BRCA1/2. Overall, 268 (18.1%) variants were reclassified at least once. Few (9.7%) reclassified variants underwent a net upgrade in pathogenicity. For BRCA1/2 variants, reclassification rates varied by ancestry and increased over time, more steeply for ancestries with lower initial rates (African, Ashkenazi, Chinese) than for ancestries whose initial rates were high (Middle Eastern) or similar to non-Hispanic European (non-Chinese Asian, Native American, Hispanic). In contrast, reclassification rates of non-BRCA1/2 variants did not vary over time but were elevated for most minority ancestries except non-Chinese Asian and Native American. Conclusions: For nonbenign variants in cancer-related genes, the rates at which reclassifications are issued vary by ancestry in ways that differ between BRCA1/2 and other genes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29618041      PMCID: PMC6249694          DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djy027

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst        ISSN: 0027-8874            Impact factor:   13.506


  14 in total

1.  Genomics. 1000 Genomes Project gives new map of genetic diversity.

Authors:  Elizabeth Pennisi
Journal:  Science       Date:  2010-10-29       Impact factor: 47.728

2.  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

3.  Increased yield of actionable mutations using multi-gene panels to assess hereditary cancer susceptibility in an ethnically diverse clinical cohort.

Authors:  Charité Ricker; Julie O Culver; Katrina Lowstuter; Duveen Sturgeon; Julia D Sturgeon; Christopher R Chanock; William J Gauderman; Kevin J McDonnell; Gregory E Idos; Stephen B Gruber
Journal:  Cancer Genet       Date:  2016-01-12

4.  Genomics is failing on diversity.

Authors:  Alice B Popejoy; Stephanie M Fullerton
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2016-10-13       Impact factor: 49.962

Review 5.  Constructions of masculinity and their influence on men's well-being: a theory of gender and health.

Authors:  W H Courtenay
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 4.634

Review 6.  The Genetic Diversity of the Americas.

Authors:  Kaustubh Adhikari; Juan Camilo Chacón-Duque; Javier Mendoza-Revilla; Macarena Fuentes-Guajardo; Andrés Ruiz-Linares
Journal:  Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet       Date:  2017-08-31       Impact factor: 8.929

7.  Genetic Misdiagnoses and the Potential for Health Disparities.

Authors:  Arjun K Manrai; Birgit H Funke; Heidi L Rehm; Morten S Olesen; Bradley A Maron; Peter Szolovits; David M Margulies; Joseph Loscalzo; Isaac S Kohane
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2016-08-18       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  Gaps in Incorporating Germline Genetic Testing Into Treatment Decision-Making for Early-Stage Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Allison W Kurian; Yun Li; Ann S Hamilton; Kevin C Ward; Sarah T Hawley; Monica Morrow; M Chandler McLeod; Reshma Jagsi; Steven J Katz
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2017-04-12       Impact factor: 50.717

9.  Clinical Application of Multigene Panels: Challenges of Next-Generation Counseling and Cancer Risk Management.

Authors:  Thomas Paul Slavin; Mariana Niell-Swiller; Ilana Solomon; Bita Nehoray; Christina Rybak; Kathleen R Blazer; Jeffrey N Weitzel
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2015-09-29       Impact factor: 6.244

10.  Pathogenic and likely pathogenic variant prevalence among the first 10,000 patients referred for next-generation cancer panel testing.

Authors:  Lisa R Susswein; Megan L Marshall; Rachel Nusbaum; Kristen J Vogel Postula; Scott M Weissman; Lauren Yackowski; Erica M Vaccari; Jeffrey Bissonnette; Jessica K Booker; M Laura Cremona; Federica Gibellini; Patricia D Murphy; Daniel E Pineda-Alvarez; Guido D Pollevick; Zhixiong Xu; Gabi Richard; Sherri Bale; Rachel T Klein; Kathleen S Hruska; Wendy K Chung
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2015-12-17       Impact factor: 8.822

View more
  13 in total

1.  Genetic Testing and Results in a Population-Based Cohort of Breast Cancer Patients and Ovarian Cancer Patients.

Authors:  Allison W Kurian; Kevin C Ward; Nadia Howlader; Dennis Deapen; Ann S Hamilton; Angela Mariotto; Daniel Miller; Lynne S Penberthy; Steven J Katz
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2019-04-09       Impact factor: 44.544

2.  The Ancestral Pace of Variant Reclassification.

Authors:  Sharon E Plon; Heidi L Rehm
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2018-10-01       Impact factor: 13.506

3.  Recontacting clinical genetics patients with reclassified results: equity and policy challenges.

Authors:  Yvonne Bombard; Chloe Mighton
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2019-04       Impact factor: 4.246

4.  BRCA1/2 Variant Data-Sharing Practices.

Authors:  Juli M Bollinger; Abhi Sanka; Lena Dolman; Rachel G Liao; Robert Cook-Deegan
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2019-03       Impact factor: 1.718

5.  The Responsibility to Recontact Research Participants after Reinterpretation of Genetic and Genomic Research Results.

Authors:  Yvonne Bombard; Kyle B Brothers; Sara Fitzgerald-Butt; Nanibaa' A Garrison; Leila Jamal; Cynthia A James; Gail P Jarvik; Jennifer B McCormick; Tanya N Nelson; Kelly E Ormond; Heidi L Rehm; Julie Richer; Emmanuelle Souzeau; Jason L Vassy; Jennifer K Wagner; Howard P Levy
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2019-04-04       Impact factor: 11.025

Review 6.  Transcriptome analysis provides critical answers to the "variants of uncertain significance" conundrum.

Authors:  Mackenzie D Postel; Julie O Culver; Charité Ricker; David W Craig
Journal:  Hum Mutat       Date:  2022-05-18       Impact factor: 4.700

7.  Recontacting registry participants with genetic updates through GenomeConnect, the ClinGen patient registry.

Authors:  Juliann M Savatt; Danielle R Azzariti; David H Ledbetter; Emily Palen; Heidi L Rehm; Erin Rooney Riggs; Christa Lese Martin
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2021-05-18       Impact factor: 8.822

8.  The effects of genomic germline variant reclassification on clinical cancer care.

Authors:  Thomas P Slavin; Sophia Manjarrez; Colin C Pritchard; Stacy Gray; Jeffrey N Weitzel
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2019-01-11

9.  Pathogenic and Uncertain Genetic Variants Have Clinical Cardiac Correlates in Diverse Biobank Participants.

Authors:  Tess D Pottinger; Megan J Puckelwartz; Lorenzo L Pesce; Avery Robinson; Samuel Kearns; Jennifer A Pacheco; Laura J Rasmussen-Torvik; Maureen E Smith; Rex Chisholm; Elizabeth M McNally
Journal:  J Am Heart Assoc       Date:  2020-02-03       Impact factor: 6.106

10.  Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study of the Diagnostic Yield and Patient Experience of Multiplex Gene Panel Testing For Hereditary Cancer Risk.

Authors:  Gregory E Idos; Allison W Kurian; Charité Ricker; Duveen Sturgeon; Julie O Culver; Kerry E Kingham; Rachel Koff; Nicolette M Chun; Courtney Rowe-Teeter; Alexandra P Lebensohn; Peter Levonian; Katrina Lowstuter; Katlyn Partynski; Christine Hong; Meredith A Mills; Iva Petrovchich; Cindy S Ma; Anne-Renee Hartman; Brian Allen; Richard J Wenstrup; Johnathan M Lancaster; Krystal Brown; John Kidd; Brent Evans; Bhramar Mukherjee; Kevin J McDonnell; Uri Ladabaum; James M Ford; Stephen B Gruber
Journal:  JCO Precis Oncol       Date:  2019-03-28
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.