The Clinical Variant Analysis Tool: Analyzing the evidence supporting reported genomic variation in clinical practice.
The Clinical Variant Analysis Tool: Analyzing the evidence supporting reported genomic variation in clinical practice.
复制标题
DOI:
10.1016/j.gim.2022.03.013
复制
发表时间:
2022-07
影响因子:
8.8
通讯作者:
Boerkoel, Cornelius F.
中科院分区:
文献类型:
--
作者:
Chin, Hui-Lin;Gazzaz, Nour;Huynh, Stephanie;Handra, Iulia;Warnock, Lynn;Moller-Hansen, Ashley;Boerkoel, Pierre;Jacobsen, Julius O. B.;du Souich, Christele;Zhang, Nan;Shefchek, Kent;Prentice, Leah M.;Washington, Nicole;Haendel, Melissa;Armstrong, Linlea;Clarke, Lorne;Li, Wenhui Laura;Smedley, Damian;Robinson, Peter N.;Boerkoel, Cornelius F.
关键词:
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. 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. 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. Implementation of CVAT standardized clinical interpretation of genomic variation and emphasized the need for collaborative and transparent reporting of genomic variation.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子:
3.9
作者:
Rivera-Muñoz EA;Milko LV;Harrison SM;Azzariti DR;Kurtz CL;Lee K;Mester JL;Weaver MA;Currey E;Craigen W;Eng C;Funke B;Hegde M;Hershberger RE;Mao R;Steiner RD;Vincent LM;Martin CL;Plon SE;Ramos E;Rehm HL;Watson M;Berg JS
通讯作者:
Berg JS
影响因子:
14.9
作者:
Howe KL;Achuthan P;Allen J;Allen J;Alvarez-Jarreta J;Amode MR;Armean IM;Azov AG;Bennett R;Bhai J;Billis K;Boddu S;Charkhchi M;Cummins C;Da Rin Fioretto L;Davidson C;Dodiya K;El Houdaigui B;Fatima R;Gall A;Garcia Giron C;Grego T;Guijarro-Clarke C;Haggerty L;Hemrom A;Hourlier T;Izuogu OG;Juettemann T;Kaikala V;Kay M;Lavidas I;Le T;Lemos D;Gonzalez Martinez J;Marugán JC;Maurel T;McMahon AC;Mohanan S;Moore B;Muffato M;Oheh DN;Paraschas D;Parker A;Parton A;Prosovetskaia I;Sakthivel MP;Salam AIA;Schmitt BM;Schuilenburg H;Sheppard D;Steed E;Szpak M;Szuba M;Taylor K;Thormann A;Threadgold G;Walts B;Winterbottom A;Chakiachvili M;Chaubal A;De Silva N;Flint B;Frankish A;Hunt SE;IIsley GR;Langridge N;Loveland JE;Martin FJ;Mudge JM;Morales J;Perry E;Ruffier M;Tate J;Thybert D;Trevanion SJ;Cunningham F;Yates AD;Zerbino DR;Flicek P
通讯作者:
Flicek P
影响因子:
30.8
作者:
Kircher, Martin;Witten, Daniela M.;Jain, Preti;O'Roak, Brian J.;Cooper, Gregory M.;Shendure, Jay
通讯作者:
Shendure, Jay
影响因子:
9.8
作者:
Robinson, Peter N.;Ravanmehr, Vida;Smedley, Damian
通讯作者:
Smedley, Damian
影响因子:
3.9
作者:
Karbassi, Izabela;Maston, Glenn A.;Higgins, Joseph J.
通讯作者:
Higgins, Joseph J.