Mismatch repair gene specifications to the ACMG/AMP classification criteria: Consensus recommendations from the InSiGHT ClinGen Hereditary Colorectal Cancer / Polyposis Variant Curation Expert Panel
Plazzer, J. P.; Macrae, F.; Yin, X.; Thompson, B. A.; Farrington, S. M.; Currie, L.; Lagerstedt-Robinson, K.; Frederiksen, J. H.; van Overeem Hansen, T.; Graversen, L.; Frayling, I. M.; Akagi, K.; Yamamoto, G.; Al-Mulla, F.; Ferber, M. J.; Martins, A.; Genuardi, M.; Kohonen-Corish, M.; Baert-Desurmont, S.; Spurdle, A. B.; Capella, G.; Pineda, M.; Woods, M. O.; Rasmussen, L. J.; Heinen, C. D.; Scott, R. J.; Tops, C. M.; Greenblatt, M. S.; Dominguez-Valentin, M.; Ognedal, E.; Borras, E.; Leung, S. Y.; Mahmood, K.; Holinski-Feder, E.; Laner, A.
Show abstract
BackgroundIt is known that gene- and disease-specific evidence domains can potentially improve the capability of the ACMG/AMP classification criteria to categorize pathogenicity for variants. We aimed to include gene-disease-specific clinical, predictive, and functional domain specifications to the ACMG/AMP criteria with respect to MMR genes. MethodsStarting with the original criteria (InSiGHT criteria) developed by the InSiGHT Variant Interpretation Committee, we systematically addressed specifications to the ACMG/AMP criteria to enable more comprehensive pathogenicity assessment within the ClinGen VCEP framework, resulting in an MMR gene-specific ACMG/AMP criteria. ResultsA total of 19 criteria were specified, 9 were considered not applicable and there were 35 variations of strength of the evidence. A pilot set of 48 variants was tested using the new MMR gene-specific ACMG/AMP criteria. Most variants remained unaltered, as compared to the previous InSiGHT criteria; however, an additional four variants of uncertain significance were reclassified to P/LP or LB by the MMR gene-specific ACMG/AMP criteria framework. ConclusionThe MMR gene-specific ACMG/AMP criteria have proven feasible for implementation, are consistent with the original InSiGHT criteria, and enable additional combinations of evidence for variant classification. This study provides a strong foundation for implementing gene-disease-specific knowledge and experience, and could also hold immense potential in a clinical setting.
Matching journals
The top 1 journal accounts for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Evaluation of Bayesian Classification Framework on the Variant Classification of Hereditary Cancer Predisposition Genes 94%
- Towards robust clinical genome interpretation: developing a consistent terminology to characterize disease-gene relationships - allelic requirement, inheritance modes and disease mechanisms 93%
- Multi-Platform Curation in the Development of ACMG/AMP Specifications for Von Hippel Lindau (VHL) Disease 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- A systems approach to enhance Lynch syndrome diagnosis through tumor testing 92%
- Estimating cancer risk in carriers of Lynch syndrome variants in UK Biobank 92%
- Exome sequencing as a first-tier test for copy number variant detection : retrospective evaluation and prospective screening in 2418 cases 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- PanelCAT: an Open-Source Comparative Analysis Tool for Next-Generation Sequencing Panel Target Regions 92%
- Germline and Tumor Whole Genome Sequencing as a Diagnostic Tool to Resolve Suspected Lynch Syndrome 92%
- Concordance of whole-genome long-read sequencing with standard clinical testing for Prader-Willi and Angelman syndromes 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Evidence-based recommendations for gene-specific ACMG/AMP variant classification from the ClinGen ENIGMA BRCA1 and BRCA2 Variant Curation Expert Panel 94%
- Evidence-based calibration of computational tools for missense variant pathogenicity classification and ClinGen recommendations for clinical use of PP3/BP4 criteria 92%
- Validating data from Multiplex Assays of Variant Effect (MAVEs): A CanVIG-UK National Survey of NHS Clinical Scientists 92%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.