4.7 Article

Prevalence of pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants in the 24 cancer genes of the ACMG Secondary Findings v2.0 list in a large cancer cohort and ethnicity-matched controls

期刊

GENOME MEDICINE
卷 10, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s13073-018-0607-5

关键词

ACMG secondary findings; Familial cancer exome; Population study; Variant classification

资金

  1. Intramural Research Program of the Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics of the National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD [HG200359 09, HG200387 04]
  2. Intramural Research Program National Human Genome Research Institute

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundPrior research has established that the prevalence of pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants across all of the American College of Medical Genetics (ACMG) Secondary Findings (SF) genes is approximately 0.8-5%. We investigated the prevalence of P/LP variants in the 24 ACMG SF v2.0 cancer genes in a family-based cancer research cohort (n=1173) and in cancer-free ethnicity-matched controls (n=982).MethodsWe used InterVar to classify variants and subsequently conducted a manualreview to further examine variants of unknown significance (VUS).ResultsIn the 24 genes on the ACMG SF v2.0 list associated with a cancer phenotype, we observed 8 P/LP unique variants (8 individuals; 0.8%) in controls and 11 P/LP unique variants (14 individuals; 1.2%) in cases, a non-significant difference. We reviewed 115 VUS. The median estimated per-variant review time required was 30min; the first variant within a gene took significantly (p=0.0009) longer to review (median = 60min) compared with subsequent variants (median = 30min). The concordance rate was 83.3% for the variants examined by two reviewers.ConclusionThe 115 VUS required database and literature review, a time- and labor-intensive process hampered by the difficulty in interpreting conflicting P/LP determinations. By rigorously investigating the 24 ACMG SF v2.0 cancer genes, our work establishes a benchmark P/LP variant prevalence rate in a familial cancer cohort and controls.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据