Clinical implications of VUS reclassification in a single-centre series from application of ACMG/AMP classification
Giovanni Innella1,2, Simona Ferrari2, Sara Miccoli2
1Dipartimento di Scienze Mediche e Chirurgiche, Università di Bologna, Bologna, Italy giovanni.innella2@unibo.it.
Background:
BRCA1/2 testing is crucial to guide clinical decisions in patients with hereditary breast/ovarian cancer, but detection of variants of uncertain significance (VUSs) prevents proper management of carriers. The ENIGMA (Evidence-based Network for the Interpretation of Germline Mutant Alleles) BRCA1/2 Variant Curation Expert Panel (VCEP) has recently developed BRCA1/2 variant classification guidelines consistent with ClinGen processes, specified against the ACMG/AMP (American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics/Association for Molecular-Pathology) classification framework.
Methods:
The ClinGen-approved BRCA1/2-specified ACMG/AMP classification guidelines were applied to BRCA1/2 VUSs identified from 2011 to 2022 in a series of patients, retrieving information from the VCEP documentation, public databases, literature and ENIGMA unpublished data. Then, we critically re-evaluated carrier families based on new results and checked consistency of updated classification with main sources for clinical interpretation of BRCA1/2 variants.
Results:
Among 166 VUSs detected in 231 index cases, 135 (81.3%) found in 197 index cases were classified by applying BRCA1/2-specified ACMG/AMP criteria: 128 (94.8%) as Benign/Likely Benign and 7 (5.2%) as Pathogenic/Likely Pathogenic. The average time from the first report as 'VUS' to classification using this approach was 49.4 months. Considering that 15 of these variants found in 64 families had already been internally reclassified prior to this work, this study provided 121 new reclassifications among the 151 (80.1%) remaining VUSs, relevant to 133/167 (79.6%) families.
Conclusions:
These results demonstrated the effectiveness of new BRCA1/2 ACMG/AMP classification guidelines for VUS classification within a clinical cohort, and their important clinical impact. Furthermore, they suggested a cadence of no more than 3 years for regular review of VUSs, which however requires time, expertise and resources.
