T Spence1,2, M A Sukhai1,2, S Kamel-Reid1,2,3, T L Stockley1,2,3. 1. Advanced Molecular Diagnostics Laboratory, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, ON. 2. Department of Clinical Laboratory Genetics, Laboratory Medicine Program, University Health Network, Toronto, ON. 3. Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON.
Abstract
Background: Practices in somatic variant interpretation and classification vary between Canadian clinical molecular diagnostic laboratories, and understanding of current practices and perspectives is limited. To define gaps and future directions, including consensus guideline development, the Somatic Curation and Interpretation Across Laboratories (social) project examined the present state of somatic variant interpretation in Canadian molecular laboratories, including testing volumes and methods, data sources and evidence criteria, and application of published classification guidelines. Methods: Individuals who perform somatic variant interpretation in Canadian centres were invited to participate in an online survey. Invitees included laboratory directors (certified as Fellows of the Canadian College of Medical Geneticists or the American College of Medical Geneticists), md or md and phd molecular pathologists, and other phd experts, including phd specialists in variant annotation or bioinformatics. Current testing methods, volumes, and platforms in next-generation sequencing, use of variant annotation resources and evidence criteria, and preference for variant classification schemes were evaluated. Results: Responses were received from 37 participants in 8 provinces. A somatic variant classification scheme jointly supported by the Association for Molecular Pathology (amp), the American Society of Clinical Oncology (asco), and the College of American Pathologists (cap) was used by 47% of respondents; an alternative guideline or a combination of published guidelines was used by 35% of respondents. The remaining 18% did not use a published scheme. Only 41% of respondents used a published scheme without alteration. Although all respondents indicated that there is a need for Canadian laboratories to adopt a somatic variant classification guideline, only 38% of respondents felt that it should be mandatory to adopt the amp/asco/cap-endorsed guideline. Conclusions: Data from the social project identified high variability in current practice, yet strong support for standardization of solid-tumour somatic variant interpretation across Canadian institutions. Aligning classification methods will reduce variation in cross-institutional classification and reporting practices, aiding in consistent practice nationwide. 2019 Multimed Inc.
Background: Practices in somatic variant interpretation and classification vary between Canadian clinical molecular diagnostic laboratories, and understanding of current practices and perspectives is limited. To define gaps and future directions, including consensus guideline development, the Somatic Curation and Interpretation Across Laboratories (social) project examined the present state of somatic variant interpretation in Canadian molecular laboratories, including testing volumes and methods, data sources and evidence criteria, and application of published classification guidelines. Methods: Individuals who perform somatic variant interpretation in Canadian centres were invited to participate in an online survey. Invitees included laboratory directors (certified as Fellows of the Canadian College of Medical Geneticists or the American College of Medical Geneticists), md or md and phd molecular pathologists, and other phd experts, including phd specialists in variant annotation or bioinformatics. Current testing methods, volumes, and platforms in next-generation sequencing, use of variant annotation resources and evidence criteria, and preference for variant classification schemes were evaluated. Results: Responses were received from 37 participants in 8 provinces. A somatic variant classification scheme jointly supported by the Association for Molecular Pathology (amp), the American Society of Clinical Oncology (asco), and the College of American Pathologists (cap) was used by 47% of respondents; an alternative guideline or a combination of published guidelines was used by 35% of respondents. The remaining 18% did not use a published scheme. Only 41% of respondents used a published scheme without alteration. Although all respondents indicated that there is a need for Canadian laboratories to adopt a somatic variant classification guideline, only 38% of respondents felt that it should be mandatory to adopt the amp/asco/cap-endorsed guideline. Conclusions: Data from the social project identified high variability in current practice, yet strong support for standardization of solid-tumour somatic variant interpretation across Canadian institutions. Aligning classification methods will reduce variation in cross-institutional classification and reporting practices, aiding in consistent practice nationwide. 2019 Multimed Inc.
Authors: S Yip; A Christofides; S Banerji; M R Downes; I Izevbaye; B Lo; A MacMillan; J McCuaig; T Stockley; G M Yousef; A Spatz Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2019-04-01 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: Funda Meric-Bernstam; Amber Johnson; Vijaykumar Holla; Ann Marie Bailey; Lauren Brusco; Ken Chen; Mark Routbort; Keyur P Patel; Jia Zeng; Scott Kopetz; Michael A Davies; Sarina A Piha-Paul; David S Hong; Agda Karina Eterovic; Apostolia M Tsimberidou; Russell Broaddus; Elmer V Bernstam; Kenna R Shaw; John Mendelsohn; Gordon B Mills Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2015-04-11 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Marilyn M Li; Michael Datto; Eric J Duncavage; Shashikant Kulkarni; Neal I Lindeman; Somak Roy; Apostolia M Tsimberidou; Cindy L Vnencak-Jones; Daynna J Wolff; Anas Younes; Marina N Nikiforova Journal: J Mol Diagn Date: 2017-01 Impact factor: 5.568
Authors: Debyani Chakravarty; Jianjiong Gao; Sarah M Phillips; Ritika Kundra; Hongxin Zhang; Jiaojiao Wang; Julia E Rudolph; Rona Yaeger; Tara Soumerai; Moriah H Nissan; Matthew T Chang; Sarat Chandarlapaty; Tiffany A Traina; Paul K Paik; Alan L Ho; Feras M Hantash; Andrew Grupe; Shrujal S Baxi; Margaret K Callahan; Alexandra Snyder; Ping Chi; Daniel Danila; Mrinal Gounder; James J Harding; Matthew D Hellmann; Gopa Iyer; Yelena Janjigian; Thomas Kaley; Douglas A Levine; Maeve Lowery; Antonio Omuro; Michael A Postow; Dana Rathkopf; Alexander N Shoushtari; Neerav Shukla; Martin Voss; Ederlinda Paraiso; Ahmet Zehir; Michael F Berger; Barry S Taylor; Leonard B Saltz; Gregory J Riely; Marc Ladanyi; David M Hyman; José Baselga; Paul Sabbatini; David B Solit; Nikolaus Schultz Journal: JCO Precis Oncol Date: 2017-05-16
Authors: T Hedley Carr; Robert McEwen; Brian Dougherty; Justin H Johnson; Jonathan R Dry; Zhongwu Lai; Zara Ghazoui; Naomi M Laing; Darren R Hodgson; Francisco Cruzalegui; Simon J Hollingsworth; J Carl Barrett Journal: Nat Rev Cancer Date: 2016-04-26 Impact factor: 60.716
Authors: Sue Richards; Nazneen Aziz; Sherri Bale; David Bick; Soma Das; Julie Gastier-Foster; Wayne W Grody; Madhuri Hegde; Elaine Lyon; Elaine Spector; Karl Voelkerding; Heidi L Rehm Journal: Genet Med Date: 2015-03-05 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Eliezer M Van Allen; Nikhil Wagle; Petar Stojanov; Danielle L Perrin; Kristian Cibulskis; Sara Marlow; Judit Jane-Valbuena; Dennis C Friedrich; Gregory Kryukov; Scott L Carter; Aaron McKenna; Andrey Sivachenko; Mara Rosenberg; Adam Kiezun; Douglas Voet; Michael Lawrence; Lee T Lichtenstein; Jeff G Gentry; Franklin W Huang; Jennifer Fostel; Deborah Farlow; David Barbie; Leena Gandhi; Eric S Lander; Stacy W Gray; Steven Joffe; Pasi Janne; Judy Garber; Laura MacConaill; Neal Lindeman; Barrett Rollins; Philip Kantoff; Sheila A Fisher; Stacey Gabriel; Gad Getz; Levi A Garraway Journal: Nat Med Date: 2014-05-18 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: Daria Grafodatskaya; Darren D O'Rielly; Karine Bedard; Darci T Butcher; Christopher J Howlett; Alice Lytwyn; Elizabeth McCready; Jillian Parboosingh; Elizabeth L Spriggs; Andrea K Vaags; Tracy L Stockley Journal: J Med Genet Date: 2022-04-07 Impact factor: 5.941