Journal
GENETICS IN MEDICINE
Volume 24, Issue 7, Pages 1512-1522Publisher
ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.gim.2022.03.013
Keywords
Exome sequencing; Genomic medicine; Precision medicine; Variant classi fi cation; Variant interpretation
Categories
Ask authors/readers for more resources
This study developed a clinical variant analysis tool (CVAT) to assist in the interpretation of genomic test results. By applying CVAT to 289 clinical exome reports, the researchers found that it achieved performance comparable to experienced medical geneticists. However, there were some issues with reported variants, including reporting variants in genes without established disease association and in genes without sufficient phenotypic concordance.
Purpose: Genomic test results, regardless of laboratory variant classification, require clinical practitioners to judge the applicability of a variant for medical decisions. Teaching and standardizing clinical interpretation of genomic variation calls for a methodology or tool. Methods: To generate such a tool, we distilled the Clinical Genome Resource framework of causality and the American College of Medical Genetics/Association of Molecular Pathology and Quest Diagnostic Laboratory scoring of variant deleteriousness into the Clinical Variant Analysis Tool (CVAT). Applying this to 289 clinical exome reports, we compared the performance of junior practitioners with that of experienced medical geneticists and assessed the utility of reported variants. Results: CVAT enabled performance comparable to that of experienced medical geneticists. In total, 124 of 289 (42.9%) exome reports and 146 of 382 (38.2%) reported variants supported a diagnosis. Overall, 10.5% (1 pathogenic [P] or likely pathogenic [LP] variant and 39 variants of uncertain significance [VUS]) of variants were reported in genes without established disease association; 20.2% (23 P/LP and 54 VUS) were in genes without sufficient phenotypic concordance; 7.3% (15 P/LP and 13 VUS) conflicted with the known molecular disease mechanism; and 24% (91 VUS) had insufficient evidence for deleteriousness. Conclusion: Implementation of CVAT standardized clinical interpretation of genomic variation and emphasized the need for collaborative and transparent reporting of genomic variation.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available