Specifications of the ACMG/AMP variant curation guidelines for the analysis of germline CDH1 sequence variants

Comparative analysis of functional assay evidence use by ClinGen Variant Curation Expert Panels

BACKGROUND

The 2015 American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) and the Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP) guidelines for clinical sequence variant interpretation state that "well-established" functional studies can be used as evidence in variant classification. These guidelines articulated key attributes of functional data, including that assays should reflect the biological environment and be analytically sound; however, details of how to evaluate these attributes were left to expert judgment. The Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) designates Variant Curation Expert Panels (VCEPs) in specific disease areas to make gene-centric specifications to the ACMG/AMP guidelines, including more specific definitions of appropriate functional assays. We set out to evaluate the existing VCEP guidelines for functional assays.

METHODS

We evaluated the functional criteria (PS3/BS3) of six VCEPs (CDH1, Hearing Loss, Inherited Cardiomyopathy-MYH7, PAH, PTEN, RASopathy). We then established criteria for evaluating functional studies based on disease mechanism, general class of assay, and the characteristics of specific assay instances described in the primary literature. Using these criteria, we extensively curated assay instances cited by each VCEP in their pilot variant classification to analyze VCEP recommendations and their use in the interpretation of functional studies.

RESULTS

Unsurprisingly, our analysis highlighted the breadth of VCEP-approved assays, reflecting the diversity of disease mechanisms among VCEPs. We also noted substantial variability between VCEPs in the method used to select these assays and in the approach used to specify strength modifications, as well as differences in suggested validation parameters. Importantly, we observed discrepancies between the parameters VCEPs specified as required for approved assay instances and the fulfillment of these requirements in the individual assays cited in pilot variant interpretation.

CONCLUSIONS

Interpretation of the intricacies of functional assays often requires expert-level knowledge of the gene and disease, and current VCEP recommendations for functional assay evidence are a useful tool to improve the accessibility of functional data by providing a starting point for curators to identify approved functional assays and key metrics. However, our analysis suggests that further guidance is needed to standardize this process and ensure consistency in the application of functional evidence.

A case for expert curation: an overview of cancer curation in the Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen)

We describe the Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) cancer-related curation activities and the importance of curation to the evolving state of variant interpretation in a clinical context for both pediatric and adult cancer patients. We highlight specific examples from the CDH1 and PTEN Variant Curation Expert Panels (VCEPs) of the FDA-recognized process by which ClinGen VCEPs specify the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics/Association of Molecular Pathology evidence code to develop variant classifications. We also review gene curations performed within the Hereditary Cancer Clinical Domain. We describe the parallel efforts for curation of somatic cancer variants from the Somatic Cancer Working Group. The ClinGen Germline/Somatic Committee is working to improve incorporation of both hereditary and somatic variant data to aid clinical interpretation. These ClinGen efforts rely on broad data sharing and detailed phenotypic and molecular information from published case studies to provide expert-curated variant interpretation to the cancer community.

Assessment of Diagnostic Outcomes of RNA Genetic Testing for Hereditary Cancer

IMPORTANCE

Performing DNA genetic testing (DGT) for hereditary cancer genes is now a well-accepted clinical practice; however, the interpretation of DNA variation remains a challenge for laboratories and clinicians. Adding RNA genetic testing (RGT) enhances DGT by clarifying the clinical actionability of hereditary cancer gene variants, thus improving clinicians' ability to accurately apply strategies for cancer risk reduction and treatment.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether RGT is associated with improvement in the diagnostic outcome of DGT and in the delivery of personalized cancer risk management for patients with hereditary cancer predisposition.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Diagnostic study in which patients and/or families with inconclusive variants detected by DGT in genes associated with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, Lynch syndrome, and hereditary diffuse gastric cancer sent blood samples for RGT from March 2016 to April 2018. Clinicians who ordered genetic testing and received a reclassification report for these variants were surveyed to assess whether RGT-related variant reclassifications changed clinical management of these patients. To quantify the potential number of tested individuals who could benefit from RGT, a cohort of 307 812 patients who underwent DGT for hereditary cancer were separately queried to identify variants predicted to affect splicing. Data analysis was conducted from March 2016 and September 2018.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Variant reclassification outcomes following RGT, clinical management changes associated with RGT-related variant reclassifications, and the proportion of patients who would likely be affected by a concurrent DGT and RGT multigene panel testing approach.

RESULTS

In total, 93 if 909 eligible families (10.2%) submitted samples for RGT. Evidence from RGT clarified the interpretation of 49 of 56 inconclusive cases (88%) studied; 26 (47%) were reclassified as clinically actionable and 23 (41%) were clarified as benign. Variant reclassifications based on RGT results changed clinical management recommendations for 8 of 18 patients (44%) and 14 of 18 families (78%), based on responses from 18 of 45 clinicians (40%) surveyed. A total of 7265 of 307 812 patients who underwent DGT had likely pathogenic variants or variants of uncertain significance potentially affecting splicing, indicating that approximately 1 in 43 individuals could benefit from RGT.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this diagnostic study, conducting RNA testing resolved a substantial proportion of variants of uncertain significance in a cohort of individuals previously tested for cancer predisposition by DGT. Performing RGT might change the diagnostic outcome of at least 1 in 43 patients if performed in all individuals undergoing genetic evaluation for hereditary cancer.

Multigene Panel Testing Increases the Number of Loci Associated with Gastric Cancer Predisposition

The main gene involved in gastric cancer (GC) predisposition is CDH1, the pathogenic variants of which are associated with diffuse-type gastric cancer (DGC) and lobular breast cancer (LBC). CDH1 only explains a fraction (10–50%) of patients suspected of DGC/LBC genetic predisposition. To identify novel susceptibility genes, thus improving the management of families at risk, we performed a multigene panel testing on selected patients. We searched for germline pathogenic variants in 94 cancer-related genes in 96 GC or LBC Italian patients with early-onset and/or family history of GC. We found CDH1 pathogenic variants in 10.4% of patients. In 11.5% of cases, we identified loss-of-function variants in BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, and ATM breast/ovarian cancer susceptibility genes, as well as in MSH2, PMS2, BMPR1A, PRF1, and BLM genes. In 78.1% of patients, we did not find any variants with clear-cut clinical significance; however, 37.3% of these cases harbored rare missense variants predicted to be damaging by bioinformatics tools. Multigene panel testing decreased the number of patients that would have otherwise remained genetically unexplained. Besides CDH1, our results demonstrated that GC pathogenic variants are distributed across a number of susceptibility genes and reinforced the emerging link between gastric and breast cancer predisposition.

Large scale multifactorial likelihood quantitative analysis of BRCA1 and BRCA2 variants: An ENIGMA resource to support clinical variant classification

The multifactorial likelihood analysis method has demonstrated utility for quantitative assessment of variant pathogenicity for multiple cancer syndrome genes. Independent data types currently incorporated in the model for assessing BRCA1 and BRCA2 variants include clinically calibrated prior probability of pathogenicity based on variant location and bioinformatic prediction of variant effect, co-segregation, family cancer history profile, co-occurrence with a pathogenic variant in the same gene, breast tumor pathology, and case-control information. Research and clinical data for multifactorial likelihood analysis were collated for 1,395 BRCA1/2 predominantly intronic and missense variants, enabling classification based on posterior probability of pathogenicity for 734 variants: 447 variants were classified as (likely) benign, and 94 as (likely) pathogenic; and 248 classifications were new or considerably altered relative to ClinVar submissions. Classifications were compared with information not yet included in the likelihood model, and evidence strengths aligned to those recommended for ACMG/AMP classification codes. Altered mRNA splicing or function relative to known nonpathogenic variant controls were moderately to strongly predictive of variant pathogenicity. Variant absence in population datasets provided supporting evidence for variant pathogenicity. These findings have direct relevance for BRCA1 and BRCA2 variant evaluation, and justify the need for gene-specific calibration of evidence types used for variant classification.

Genetics of gastric cancer: what do we know about the genetic risks?

An appreciable number of patients with gastric cancer have an underlying hereditary cancer susceptibility syndrome as the cause of their gastric cancer, particularly those with early onset gastric cancer or a family history of gastric or other cancers. Pathogenic germline variants in specific genes account for the known gastric cancer predisposition syndromes. Germline genetic testing can identify individuals and their family members who carry inherited pathogenic gene variants, and thus have increased risk of developing gastric or other cancers. Ideally, germline pathogenic variants can be identified in family members before the onset of disease, when early detection or prevention strategies can be implemented most effectively to decrease gastric cancer- related morbidity and mortality. This article reviews some of the currently known gastric cancer predisposition syndromes and their associated cancer risks. We also discuss current research and advances in the field of genetic gastric cancer susceptibility.

Associations of CDH1 germline variant location and cancer phenotype in families with hereditary diffuse gastric cancer (HDGC)

INTRODUCTION

Hereditary diffuse gastric cancer (HDGC) is a cancer syndrome associated with variants in E-cadherin (CDH1), diffuse gastric cancer and lobular breast cancer. There is considerable heterogeneity in its clinical manifestations. This study aimed to determine associations between CDH1 germline variant status and clinical phenotypes of HDGC.

METHODS

One hundred and fifty-two HDGC families, including six previously unreported families, were identified. CDH1 gene-specific guidelines released by the Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) CDH1 Variant Curation Expert Panel were applied for pathogenicity classification of truncating, missense and splice site CDH1 germline variants. We evaluated ORs between location of truncating variants of CDH1 and incidence of colorectal cancer, breast cancer and cancer at young age (gastric cancer at <40 or breast cancer <50 years of age).

RESULTS

Frequency of truncating germline CDH1 variants varied across functional domains of the E-cadherin receptor gene and was highest in linker (0.05785 counts/base pair; p=0.0111) and PRE regions (0.10000; p=0.0059). Families with truncating CDH1 germline variants located in the PRE-PRO region were six times more likely to have family members affected by colorectal cancer (OR 6.20, 95% CI 1.79 to 21.48; p=0.004) compared with germline variants in other regions. Variants in the intracellular E-cadherin region were protective for cancer at young age (OR 0.2, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.64; p=0.0071) and in the linker regions for breast cancer (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.99; p=0.0493). Different CDH1 genotypes were associated with different intracellular signalling activation levels including different p-ERK, p-mTOR and β-catenin levels in early submucosal T1a lesions of HDGC families with different CDH1 variants.

CONCLUSION

Type and location of CDH1 germline variants may help to identify families at increased risk for concomitant cancers that might benefit from individualised surveillance and intervention strategies.