Akkari, Yassmine

Context.— Genomic reports are primarily organized in a narrative and unstructured format with variations in content and format. Regulatory requirements and professional guidelines for genetic test reporting exist but provide little guidance for effective communication of information. Objective.— To assess clinical genomic reporting practices across 5 disciplines within molecular diagnostics, including germline, somatic solid tumors, somatic hematologic malignancies, pharmacogenomics, and prenatal cell-free DNA screening. Design.— Reporting practices were assessed by using a structured review of clinical genomic reports from multiple laboratories in 5 molecular disciplines spanning different practice settings. Report content was reviewed by the presence/absence of from 27 to 44 elements, including 23 elements required by the College of American Pathologists and/or the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA). If present, the element’s location on the report was recorded. Results.— A total of 69 genomics reports from 31 laboratories were reviewed. Overall, the reports were compliant with regulatory requirements but showed variability in both format and content. Six of 7 required reporting elements (per CLIA, 42 CFR [Code of Federal Regulations] 493.1291) were included in 90% of the reports. However, these elements were often located in different report sections. Only patient demographics were always found in a specific report section (header). Conclusions.— These results show that reports are overall compliant with regulatory requirements, despite some reporting elements being less consistently reported. The lack of consistent presentation of the data elements presents an opportunity to improve the communication of molecular testing results to clinicians and patients.

Abstract The comprehensive evaluation of somatic variants in cancer requires consensus interpretation of their potential clinical significance (diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment response) and oncogenicity. To aid precision medicine through public interpretations, a multifaceted collaborative effort is required to bring together a community, structured guidance, and a public platform. The over 200 multi-disciplinary experts in the Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) Somatic Cancer Clinical Domain Working Group (CDWG) provide a community that develops data curation guidelines and standards and curates evidence to determine the clinical significance and oncogenicity of somatic alterations in cancer. The Somatic CDWG established the Pediatric Cancer, Hematological Cancer, and Solid Tumor Taskforces to facilitate membership growth and targeted curation projects. Within these Taskforces, Somatic Cancer Variant Curation Expert Panels (SC-VCEPs) are developed through a 4-step approval process adapted from ClinGen germline VCEP procedures. Five SC-VCEPs (NTRK-fusions, FGFR variants, FLT3 variants, Histone H3 variants, and BCR::ABL1-like B-ALL alterations) are working through the approval process and one (Established Significance) is in the planning stage. SC-VCEPs tailor AMP/ASCO/CAP [PMID:27993330] and ClinGen/CGC/VICC Oncogenicity [PMID:35101336] guidelines, or create new classification guidance to aid granular assessment of their genomic alterations of interest. The Clinical Interpretations of Variants in Cancer (CIViC) knowledgebase provides the public platform for the Taskforces and SC-VCEPs to display their high-quality somatic cancer variant interpretations. These groups curate evidence from published literature and create Assertions summarizing evidence collected. These Assertions are further disseminated through other resources like ClinVar and the Variant Interpretation for Cancer Consortium (VICC) MetaKB. CIViC supports the application of AMP/ASCO/CAP tiering and levels for clinical significance Assertions. CIViC recently created Oncogenic Assertions, which supports the application of ClinGen/CGC/VICC codes. Three SC-VCEPs (FGFR, FLT3, and Histone H3) are tailoring the ClinGen/CGC/VICC Oncogenicity guidelines to their specific genes and CIViC will enable their ClinGen-approved, modified codes to be applied directly to their Oncogenic Assertions. Also, two SC-VCEPs (NTRK and BCR::ABL1-like) are developing fusion specific oncogenicity classification guidelines, which will be applied to their fusion specific CIViC Oncogenic Assertions. ClinGen Somatic groups have generated 695 CIViC Evidence Items and 33 Assertions from over 400 published papers. These numbers will continue to grow along with the development of more SC-VCEPs. ClinGen Somatic and CIViC foster collaboration, innovation, and most importantly the advancement of precision medicine. Citation Format: Jason Saliba, Arpad Danos, Kilannin Krysiak, Adam Coffman, Susanna Kiwala, Joshua McMichael, Cameron J. Grisdale, Ian King, Shamini Selvarajah, Xinjie Xu, Rashmi Kanagal-Shamanna, Laveniya Satgunaseelan, David Meredith, Mark Evans, Charles G. Mullighan, Yassmine Akkari, Gordana Raca, Angshumoy Roy, Alex H. Wagner, Ramaswamy Govindan, Obi L. Griffith, Malachi Griffith, on behalf of the ClinGen Somatic Clinical Domain Working Group. ClinGen Somatic and CIViC collaborate to comprehensively evaluate somatic variants in cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2023; Part 1 (Regular and Invited Abstracts); 2023 Apr 14-19; Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(7_Suppl):Abstract nr 6569.

Abstract Detection of hallmark genomic aberrations in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is essential for diagnostic subtyping, prognosis, and patient management. However, cytogenetic/cytogenomic techniques used to identify those aberrations, such as karyotyping, fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), or chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA), are limited by the need for skilled personnel as well as significant time, cost, and labor. Optical genome mapping (OGM) provides a single, cost-effective assay with a significantly higher resolution than karyotyping and with a comprehensive genome-wide analysis comparable with CMA and the added unique ability to detect balanced structural variants (SVs). Here, we report in a real-world setting the performance of OGM in a cohort of 100 AML cases that were previously characterized by karyotype alone or karyotype and FISH or CMA. OGM identified all clinically relevant SVs and copy number variants (CNVs) reported by these standard cytogenetic methods when representative clones were present in >5% allelic fraction. Importantly, OGM identified clinically relevant information in 13% of cases that had been missed by the routine methods. Three cases reported with normal karyotypes were shown to have cryptic translocations involving gene fusions. In 4% of cases, OGM findings would have altered recommended clinical management, and in an additional 8% of cases, OGM would have rendered the cases potentially eligible for clinical trials. The results from this multi-institutional study indicate that OGM effectively recovers clinically relevant SVs and CNVs found by standard-of-care methods and reveals additional SVs that are not reported. Furthermore, OGM minimizes the need for labor-intensive multiple cytogenetic tests while concomitantly maximizing diagnostic detection through a standardized workflow.

AbstractAcute lymphoblastic leukemia (B‐ALL) with intrachromosomal amplification of chromosome 21 (iAMP21‐ALL) represents a recurrent high‐risk cytogenetic abnormality and accurate identification is critical for appropriate clinical management. Identification of iAMP21‐ALL has historically relied on fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) using a RUNX1 probe. Current classification requires ≥ five copies of RUNX1 per cell and ≥ three additional copies of RUNX1 on a single abnormal iAMP21‐chromosome. We sought to evaluate the performance of the RUNX1 probe in the identification of iAMP21‐ALL. This study was a retrospective evaluation of iAMP21‐ALL in the Mayo Clinic and Children's Oncology Group cohorts. Of 207 cases of iAMP21‐ALL, 188 (91%) were classified as “typical” iAMP21‐ALL, while 19 (9%) cases were classified as “unusual” iAMP21‐ALL. The “unusual” iAMP21 cases did not meet the current definition of iAMP21 by FISH but were confirmed to have iAMP21 by chromosomal microarray. Half of the “unusual” iAMP21‐ALL cases had less than five RUNX1 signals, while the remainder had ≥ five RUNX1 signals with some located apart from the abnormal iAMP21‐chromosome. Nine percent of iAMP21‐ALL cases fail to meet the FISH definition of iAMP21‐ALL demonstrating that laboratories are at risk of misidentification of iAMP21‐ALL when relying only on the RUNX1 FISH probe. Incorporation of chromosomal microarray testing circumvents these risks.

Abstract Interpretation of the clinical significance of somatic gene variants in cancer remains a major challenge in cancer diagnosis, prognosis and treatment response prediction. We will report on progress and plans of the Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) Somatic Cancer Clinical Domain Working Group (CDWG). The CDWG membership consists of over 150 multi-disciplinary experts in cancer biology, oncology, pathology, genetics, genomics and informatics. The mission of the ClinGen Somatic Cancer CDWG is to facilitate the development of data curation guidelines and standards to determine the clinical significance of somatic alterations in cancer, thereby enhancing the usability, dissemination and implementation of cancer somatic changes in the ClinGen resource and other knowledgebases including CIViC, ClinVar, and the Variant Interpretation for Cancer Consortium (VICC) MetaKB. Our goal is to create high-quality assertions of the clinical significance of specific somatic variants in cancer by leveraging the CIViC curation interface, adapting the germline procedures of ClinGen to somatic variant interpretation, and implementing the interoperability standards of the Global Alliance for Genomics and Health (GA4GH). The ClinGen Somatic effort is overseen by the Somatic CDWG and reports progress to the overall ClinGen consortium. There are Somatic Cancer subdomains focused on particular clinically important domains of cancer variant interpretation including three Task Forces (covering Pediatric Cancer, Hematologic Cancer, and Solid Tumors) and a growing number of Somatic Cancer Variant Curation Expert Panels (SC-VCEPs). To improve quality and consistency of clinical interpretations, each candidate somatic cancer VCEP must complete a four step approval process adapted from ClinGen’s work in Germline disease domains. The Somatic CDWG works to ensure that each group is aware of available training materials and detailed standard operating procedures. Each SC-VCEP also coordinates with the ClinGen Cancer Variant Interpretation Committee (CVI) whose goal is to support development of granular specifications for the AMP/ASCO/CAP guidelines for somatic variant interpretation. New SC-VCEPs are anticipated to focus on specific clinically relevant genes, pathways, disease entities, variant classes or treatment modalities. Currently, three SC-VCEPs have begun to work through the four step process (focused on FGFR mutations, NTRK fusions, and FLT3 mutations respectively), and two more SC-VCEPs are in the planning stage (Histone H3 and Ph-like ALL). To date, ClinGen Somatic groups have contributed 619 evidence lines into CIViC from 353 published papers and 21 assertions of clinical significance. Input from the AACR community is critical for the establishment of new SC-VCEPs that address areas of variant interpretation with the greatest need. Citation Format: Jason Saliba, Gordana Raca, Angshumoy Roy, Ian King, Shamini Selvarajah, Xinjie Xu, Rashmi Kanagal-Shamanna, Laveniya Satgunaseelan, David Meredith, Mark Evans, Alanna Church, Panieh Terraf, Yassmine Akkari, Heather E. Williams, Wan-Hsin Lin, Chimene Kesserwan, Deborah I. Ritter, Kilannin Krysiak, Arpad Danos, Alex Wagner, Marilyn M. Li, Dmitriy Sonkin, Jonathan S. Berg, Sharon E. Plon, Heidi L. Rehm, Shashikant Kulkarni, Ramaswamy Govindan, Obi L. Griffith, Malachi Griffith, on behalf of the ClinGen Somatic CDWG. The Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) somatic cancer clinical domain working group [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2022; 2022 Apr 8-13. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(12_Suppl):Abstract nr 1192.

Abstract Cytogenetics has long represented a critical component in the clinical evaluation of hematologic malignancies. Chromosome banding studies provide a simultaneous snapshot of genome-wide copy number and structural variation, which have been shown to drive tumorigenesis, define diseases, and guide treatment. Technological innovations in sequencing have ushered in our present-day clinical genomics era. With recent publications highlighting novel sequencing technologies as alternatives to conventional cytogenetic approaches, we, an international consortium of laboratory geneticists, pathologists, and oncologists, describe herein the advantages and limitations of both conventional chromosome banding and novel sequencing technologies and share our considerations on crucial next steps to implement these novel technologies in the global clinical setting for a more accurate cytogenetic evaluation, which may provide improved diagnosis and treatment management. Considering the clinical, logistic, technical, and financial implications, we provide points to consider for the global evolution of cytogenetic testing.

Context.— One goal of the joint College of American Pathologists/American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics Cytogenetics Committee is to ensure the accurate detection and description of chromosomal abnormalities in both constitutional and neoplastic specimens, including hematologic neoplasms. Objective.— To report a 20-year performance summary (1999–2018) of conventional chromosome challenges focusing on hematologic neoplasms. Design.— A retrospective review was performed from 1999 through 2018 to identify karyotype challenges specifically addressing hematologic neoplasms. The overall performance of participants was examined to identify potential recurring errors of clinical significance. Results.— Of 288 total conventional chromosome challenges from 1999–2018, 87 (30.2%) were presented in the context of a hematologic neoplasm, based on the provided clinical history, specimen type, and/or chromosomal abnormalities. For these 87 hematologic neoplasm challenges, 91 individual cases were provided and graded on the basis of abnormality recognition and karyotype nomenclature (ISCN, International System for Human Cytogenomic [previously Cytogenetic] Nomenclature). Of the 91 cases, 89 (97.8%) and 87 (95.6%) exceeded the required 80% consensus for grading of abnormality recognition and correct karyotype nomenclature, respectively. The 2 cases (2 of 91; 2.2%) that failed to meet the 80% consensus for abnormality recognition had complex karyotypes. The 4 cases (4 of 91; 4.4%) that failed to meet the 80% consensus for correct karyotype nomenclature were the result of incorrect abnormality recognition (2 cases), missing brackets in the karyotype (1 case), and incorrect breakpoint designation (1 case). Conclusions.— This 20-year review demonstrates clinical cytogenetics laboratories have been and continue to be highly proficient in the detection and description of chromosomal abnormalities associated with hematologic neoplasms.