Back

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.

2024-05-14 genetic and genomic medicine
10.1101/2024.05.13.24307108 medRxiv
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 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Human Mutation
29 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
27.0%
2
Genetics in Medicine
69 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
23.5%
50% of probability mass above
3
The Journal of Molecular Diagnostics
36 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.6%
4
Journal of Medical Genetics
28 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.6%
5
Genome Medicine
154 papers in training set
Top 1%
5.1%
6
European Journal of Human Genetics
49 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.7%
7
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 51%
1.9%
8
Frontiers in Oncology
95 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.5%
9
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 65%
1.3%
10
npj Genomic Medicine
33 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.3%
11
Cancer Medicine
24 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.0%
12
npj Precision Oncology
48 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.0%
13
International Journal of Cancer
42 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
0.9%
14
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
17 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.8%
15
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.8%
16
Cancers
200 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
17
BMC Medical Genomics
36 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
18
Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences
100 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
19
Nucleic Acids Research
1128 papers in training set
Top 17%
0.7%
20
Genes
126 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
21
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 66%
0.5%
22
Annals of Oncology
13 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.5%
23
eBioMedicine
130 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.5%
24
International Journal of Molecular Sciences
453 papers in training set
Top 19%
0.5%