Changes in classification of genetic variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2

Shariant platform: Enabling evidence sharing across Australian clinical genetic-testing laboratories to support variant interpretation

Sharing genomic variant interpretations across laboratories promotes consistency in variant assertions. A landscape analysis of Australian clinical genetic-testing laboratories in 2017 identified that, despite the national-accreditation-body recommendations encouraging laboratories to submit genotypic data to clinical databases, fewer than 300 variants had been shared to the ClinVar public database. Consultations with Australian laboratories identified resource constraints limiting routine application of manual processes, consent issues, and differences in interpretation systems as barriers to sharing. This information was used to define key needs and solutions required to enable national sharing of variant interpretations. The Shariant platform, using both the GRCh37 and GRCh38 genome builds, was developed to enable ongoing sharing of variant interpretations and associated evidence between Australian clinical genetic-testing laboratories. Where possible, two-way automated sharing was implemented so that disruption to laboratory workflows would be minimized. Terms of use were developed through consultation and currently restrict access to Australian clinical genetic-testing laboratories. Shariant was designed to store and compare structured evidence, to promote and record resolution of inter-laboratory classification discrepancies, and to streamline the submission of variant assertions to ClinVar. As of December 2021, more than 14,000 largely prospectively curated variant records from 11 participating laboratories have been shared. Discrepant classifications have been identified for 11% (28/260) of variants submitted by more than one laboratory. We have demonstrated that co-design with clinical laboratories is vital to developing and implementing a national variant-interpretation sharing effort. This approach has improved inter-laboratory concordance and enabled opportunities to standardize interpretation practices.

Interdisciplinary risk counseling for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer: real-world data from a specialized center

Purpose

Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer has long been established to affect a considerable number of patients and their families. By identifying those at risk ideally before they have been diagnosed with breast and/or ovarian cancer, access to preventive measures, intensified screening and special therapeutic options can be obtained, and thus, prognosis can be altered beneficially. Therefore, a standardized screening and counseling process has been established in Germany under the aegis of the German Consortium for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer (GC-HBOC). As one of these specialized clinics, the HBOC-Center at Charité offers genetic counseling as well as genetic analysis based on the GC-HBOC standards. This analysis aims first at depicting this process from screening through counseling to genetic analysis as well as the patient collective and second at correlating the results of genetic analysis performed. Thus, real-world data from an HBOC-Center with a substantial patient collective and a high frequency of pathogenic variants in various genes shall be presented.

Methods

The data of 2531 people having been counseled at the HBOC-Center at Charité in 2016 and 2017 were analyzed in terms of patient and family history as well as pathogenic variants detected during genetic analysis with the TruRisk® gene panel when genetic analysis was conducted. This standardized analysis is compiled and regularly adjusted by the GC-HBOC. The following genes were included at time of research: BRCA1, BRCA2, ATM, CDH1, CHEK2, PALB2, RAD51C, RAD51D, NBN, and TP53.

Results

Genetic analysis was conducted in 59.8% of all cases meeting the criteria for genetic analysis and 286 pathogenic variants were detected among 278 (30.3%) counselees tested using the TruRisk® gene panel. These were primarily found in the genes BRCA1 (44.8%) and BRCA2 (28.3%) but also in CHEK2 (12.2%), ATM (5.6%) and PALB2 (3.5%). The highest prevalence of pathogenic variants was seen among the families with both ovarian and breast cancer (50.5%), followed by families with ovarian cancer only (43.2%) and families with breast cancer only (35.6%)—these differences are statistically significant (p < 0.001). Considering breast cancer subtypes, the highest rate of pathogenic variants was detected among patients with triple-negative breast cancer (40.7%) and among patients who had had been diagnosed with triple-negative breast cancer before the age of 40 (53.4%)—both observations proved to be statistically significant (p = 0.003 and p = 0.001).

Conclusion

Genetic counseling and analysis provide the foundation in the prevention and therapy of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. The rate of pathogenic variants detected is associated with family history as well as breast cancer subtype and age at diagnosis, and can reach considerable dimensions. Therefore, a standardized process of identification, genetic counseling and genetic analysis deems mandatory.

BRCA1 Norway: comparison of classification for BRCA1 germline variants detected in families with suspected hereditary breast and ovarian cancer between different laboratories

Pathogenic germline variants in Breast cancer susceptibility gene 1 (BRCA1) predispose carriers to hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC). Through genetic testing of patients with suspected HBOC an increasing number of novel BRCA1 variants are discovered. This creates a growing need to determine the clinical significance of these variants through correct classification (class 1-5) according to established guidelines. Here we present a joint collection of all BRCA1 variants of class 2-5 detected in the four diagnostic genetic laboratories in Norway. The overall objective of the study was to generate an overview of all BRCA1 variants in Norway and unveil potential discrepancies in variant interpretation between the hospitals, serving as a quality control at the national level. For a subset of variants, we also assessed the change in classification over a ten-year period with increasing information available. In total, 463 unique BRCA1 variants were detected. Of the 126 variants found in more than one hospital, 70% were interpreted identically, while 30% were not. The differences in interpretation were mainly by one class (class 2/3 or 4/5), except for one larger discrepancy (class 3/5) which could affect the clinical management of patients. After a series of digital meetings between the participating laboratories to disclose the cause of disagreement for all conflicting variants, the discrepancy rate was reduced to 10%. This illustrates that variant interpretation needs to be updated regularly, and that data sharing and improved national inter-laboratory collaboration greatly improves the variant classification and hence increases the accuracy of cancer risk assessment.

BRCA1/2 Mutation Detection in the Tumor Tissue from Selected Polish Patients with Breast Cancer Using Next Generation Sequencing

(1) Background: Although, in the mutated BRCA detected in the Polish population of patients with breast cancer, there is a large percentage of recurrent pathogenic variants, an increasing need for the assessment of rare BRCA1/2 variants using NGS can be observed. (2) Methods: We studied 75 selected patients with breast cancer (negative for the presence of 5 mutations tested in the Polish population in the prophylactic National Cancer Control Program). DNA extracted from the cancer tissue of these patients was used to prepare a library and to sequence all coding regions of the BRCA1/2 genes. (3) Results: We detected nine pathogenic variants in 8 out of 75 selected patients (10.7%). We identified one somatic and eight germline variants. We also used different bioinformatic NGS software programs to analyze NGS FASTQ files and established that tertiary analysis performed with different tools was more likely to give the same outcome if we analyzed files received from secondary analysis using the same method. (4) Conclusions: Our study emphasizes (i) the importance of an NGS validation process with a bioinformatic procedure included; (ii) the importance of screening both somatic and germline pathogenic variants; (iii) the urgent need to identify additional susceptible genes in order to explain the high percentage of non-BRCA-related hereditary cases of breast cancer.

Economic modeling of risk-adapted screen-and-treat strategies in women at high risk for breast or ovarian cancer

BACKGROUND

The 'German Consortium for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer' (GC-HBOC) offers women with a family history of breast and ovarian cancer genetic counseling. The aim of this modeling study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of genetic testing for BRCA 1/2 in women with a high familial risk followed by different preventive interventions (intensified surveillance, risk-reducing bilateral mastectomy, risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, or both mastectomy and salpingo-oophorectomy) compared to no genetic test.

METHODS

A Markov model with a lifelong time horizon was developed for a cohort of 35-year-old women with a BRCA 1/2 mutation probability of ≥ 10%. The perspective of the German statutory health insurance (SHI) was adopted. The model included the health states 'well' (women with increased risk), 'breast cancer without metastases', 'breast cancer with metastases', 'ovarian cancer', 'death', and two post (non-metastatic) breast or ovarian cancer states. Outcomes were costs, quality of life years gained (QALYs) and life years gained (LYG). Important data used for the model were obtained from 4380 women enrolled in the GC-HBOC.

RESULTS

Compared with the no test strategy, genetic testing with subsequent surgical and non-surgical treatment options provided to women with deleterious BRCA 1 or 2 mutations resulted in additional costs of €7256 and additional QALYs of 0,43 (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €17,027 per QALY; cost per LYG: €22,318). The results were robust in deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSION

The provision of genetic testing to high-risk women with a BRCA1 and two mutation probability of ≥ 10% based on the individual family cancer history appears to be a cost-effective option for the SHI.

Variant classification changes over time in BRCA1 and BRCA2

PURPOSE

To report BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) variant reassessments and reclassifications between 2012 and 2017 at the Advanced Molecular Diagnostics Laboratory (AMDL) in Toronto, Canada, which provides BRCA1/2 testing for patients in Ontario, and to compare AMDL variant classifications with submissions in ClinVar.

METHODS

Variants were assessed using a standardized variant assessment tool based on the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics/Association for Molecular Pathology's guidelines and tracked in an in-house database. Variants were shared through the Canadian Open Genetics Repository and submitted to ClinVar for comparison against other laboratories.

RESULTS

AMDL identified 1209 BRCA1/2 variants between 2012 and 2017. During this period, 32.9% (398/1209) of variants were reassessed and 12.4% (150/1209) were reclassified. The majority of reclassified variants were downgraded (112/150, 74.7%). Of the reclassified variants, 63.3% (95/150) were reclassified to benign, 20.7% (31/150) to likely benign, 10.0% (15/150) to variant of uncertain significance, 2.0% (3/150) to likely pathogenic, and 4.0% (6/150) to pathogenic. Discordant ClinVar submissions were found for 40.4% (488/1209) of variants.

CONCLUSION

BRCA1/2 variants may be reclassified over time. Reclassification presents ethical and practical challenges related to recontacting patients. Data sharing is essential to improve variant interpretation, to help patients receive appropriate care based on their genetic results.

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

The evidence base supporting genetic and genomic sequence-variant interpretations is continuously evolving. An inherent consequence is that a variant's clinical significance might be reinterpreted over time as new evidence emerges regarding its pathogenicity or lack thereof. This raises ethical, legal, and financial issues as to whether there is a responsibility to recontact research participants to provide updates on reinterpretations of variants after the initial analysis. There has been discussion concerning the extent of this obligation in the context of both research and clinical care. Although clinical recommendations have begun to emerge, guidance is lacking on the responsibilities of researchers to inform participants of reinterpreted results. To respond, an American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) workgroup developed this position statement, which was approved by the ASHG Board in November 2018. The workgroup included representatives from the National Society of Genetic Counselors, the Canadian College of Medical Genetics, and the Canadian Association of Genetic Counsellors. The final statement includes twelve position statements that were endorsed or supported by the following organizations: Genetic Alliance, European Society of Human Genetics, Canadian Association of Genetic Counsellors, American Association of Anthropological Genetics, Executive Committee of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, Canadian College of Medical Genetics, Human Genetics Society of Australasia, and National Society of Genetic Counselors.