Rehder, Catherine

Background: The joint College of American Pathologists/American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics Cytogenetics Committee works to ensure the competency and proficiency of clinical cytogenetic testing laboratories through proficiency testing (PT) programs for various clinical tests offered by such laboratories, including the evaluation of cytogenetic abnormalities in solid tumors. Methods: Review and analyze 25 years (1999–2023) of solid tumor chromosome analysis PT results, utilizing G-banded karyograms. A retrospective review of results from 1999 to 2023 was performed, identifying the challenges addressing solid tumors. The chromosomal abnormalities and overall performance were evaluated. Results: A total of 21 solid tumor challenges were administered during the period 1999–2018. No solid tumor challenges were administered during the period 2019–2023. Challenges consisted of metaphase images and accompanying clinical history for the evaluation of numerical and/or structural abnormalities. All 21 cases reached 80% grading consensus for abnormality recognition. However, five cases (24%) failed to reach consensus for nomenclature reporting by participating laboratories. These cases illustrate errors in reporting chromosomal abnormalities, including whole-arm translocations and those involving sex chromosomes. In addition, they highlight the challenges with differentiation of terminal and interstitial deletions, difficulties in identifying correct breakpoints, and omission of brackets in neoplastic cases. Conclusions: This comprehensive 25-year review demonstrates the exceptional proficiency of cytogenetic laboratories in accurately identifying chromosome abnormalities in solid tumors, while also highlighting the challenges of reporting specific types of chromosomal abnormalities.

Context.— The joint College of American Pathologists/American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics Cytogenetics Committee works to ensure competency and proficiency of clinical cytogenetics testing laboratories through proficiency testing programs for various clinical tests offered by such laboratories, including the evaluation of constitutional abnormalities. Objective.— To review and analyze 20 years of constitutional chromosome analysis proficiency testing results (2003–2022), primarily utilizing G-banded karyograms. Design.— A retrospective review of results from 2003 through 2022 was performed, identifying challenges addressing constitutional disorders. The chromosomal abnormalities and overall performance were evaluated. Results.— A total of 184 cases from 161 proficiency testing challenges were administered from 2003 through 2022. Challenges consisted of metaphase images and accompanying clinical history for evaluation of numerical and/or structural abnormalities. Of the 184 cases, only 2 (1%) failed to reach an 80% grading consensus for recognition of the abnormality. Both cases illustrated the limitations of correctly characterizing some chromosomal abnormalities, including recombinant chromosomal abnormalities and isochromosome identification. In addition, 2 cases failed to reach a consensus for nomenclature reporting: 1 with an isochromosome and another with a duplication. Conclusions.— This 20-year review illustrates the high rate of competency and proficiency of cytogenetic laboratories in the correct identification of constitutional chromosome abnormalities.

Abstract Despite the well-established role of recurrent gene fusions as oncogenic drivers, current practices for characterizing and interpreting gene fusion events in clinical testing and in biomedical literature are inconsistent. From the conceptual definition of gene fusions to the salient elements that characterize these alterations, a lack of community-driven standards for the curation of gene fusions has resulted in a disparate landscape of fusion representations and supporting tools. Consequently, the evidence-based clinical evaluation of gene fusions requires extensive expert review for accurate interpretation of observed gene fusions with respect to putative evidence from biomedical literature. Furthermore, the lack of these standards inhibits the interoperability of tools, resources, and pipelines - impeding data sharing and downstream utility.To address these challenges, a cross-consortia initiative between the Variant Interpretation for Cancer Consortium and ClinGen was formed to develop a standard operating procedure (SOP) for the curation of gene fusions. The SOP is under development by an international and diverse set of experts in the representation, detection, and clinical interpretation of gene fusions. Participating stakeholders across academic, government, and industry sectors showcased challenges and solutions, and participated in community surveys and discussions to define and develop the SOP for this diverse class of alterations.An initial result of this effort was the precise molecular definition of genomic events and features constituting gene fusions. We distinguish these from similar but distinct classes of structural alterations through clinically-relevant examples. Next, we discuss our findings on community practices around the description and evaluation of gene fusions. We provide our recommendations for characterization and representation of gene fusions from these practices, and compare these recommendations to existing variant representation standards and formats (e.g. HGVS variant nomenclature). We also discuss the concurrent application of formats for standardized human- and machine-readable representations of gene fusion events.We conclude with discussion of the salient elements to enable rapid, scalable, and consistent evaluation of fusions curated from the biomedical literature. Recommendations are provided for the standardized capture of these elements to enable both intuitive and precise characterization of this diverse class of alterations in clinical reporting and literature. In summary, we provide a clinical-practice driven framework and nomenclature for gene fusions, including recommendations for human readability, computational precision, and data integrity within the SOP. This work is a substantial advancement towards standardized communication, investigation, and sharing of gene fusion data across clinical and research domains and specialties. Citation Format: Alex H. Wagner, Ioannis S. Vlachos, Dmitriy Sonkin, Panieh Terraf, Chimene Kesserwan, Andrea Sboner, Thomas Coard, Christian Reich, Deborah I. Ritter, Peter Horak, Ying S. Zou, Anna Tanska, Aaron M. Berlin, Anna Lu, Daniel Cameron, Heather E. Williams, Wan-Hsin Lin, Gokce Toruner, Arpad Danos, Jason Saliba, Huiling Xu, Xinjie Xu, Georgina Ryland, Michele Ceccarelli, Liying Zhang, Sarah Rapisardo, Catherine Rehder, Xuelu Liu, Aparna Pallavajjala, Nicole Park, Laveniya Satgunaseelan, Kristy Lee, Jie Liu, Obi Griffith, Robert R. Freimuth, Albrecht Stenzinger, Linda B. Baughn, Michael Baudis, Jennifer Lee, Marilyn Li, Angshumoy Roy, Gordana Raca. A standard operating procedure for the curation of gene fusions [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021; 2021 Apr 10-15 and May 17-21. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(13_Suppl):Abstract nr 449.

ABSTRACTBackgroundCurrently available structural variant (SV) detection methods do not span the complete spectrum of disease‐causing SVs. Optical genome mapping (OGM), an emerging technology with the potential to resolve diagnostic dilemmas, was performed to investigate clinically‐relevant SVs in a 4‐year‐old male with an epileptic encephalopathy of undiagnosed molecular origin.MethodsOGM was utilized to image long, megabase‐size DNA molecules, fluorescently labeled at specific sequence motifs throughout the genome with high sensitivity for detection of SVs greater than 500 bp in size. OGM results were confirmed in a CLIA‐certified laboratory via mate‐pair sequencing.ResultsOGM identified a mosaic, de novo 90 kb deletion and inversion on the X chromosome disrupting the CDKL5 gene. Detection of the mosaic deletion, which had been previously undetected by chromosomal microarray, an infantile epilepsy panel including exon‐level microarray for CDKL5, exome sequencing as well as genome sequencing, resulted in a diagnosis of X‐linked dominant early infantile epileptic encephalopathy‐2.ConclusionOGM affords an effective technology for the detection of SVs, especially those that are mosaic, since these remain difficult to detect with current NGS technologies and with conventional chromosomal microarrays. Further research in undiagnosed populations with OGM is warranted.

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.