Balmañà, Judith

Purpose Massively parallel sequencing allows simultaneous testing of multiple genes associated with cancer susceptibility. Guidelines are available for variant classification; however, interpretation of these guidelines by laboratories and providers may differ and lead to conflicting reporting and, potentially, to inappropriate medical management. We describe conflicting variant interpretations between Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments–approved commercial clinical laboratories, as reported to the Prospective Registry of Multiplex Testing (PROMPT), an online genetic registry. Methods Clinical data and genetic testing results were gathered from 1,191 individuals tested for inherited cancer susceptibility and self-enrolled in PROMPT between September 2014 and October 2015. Overall, 518 participants (603 genetic variants) had a result interpreted by more than one laboratory, including at least one submitted to ClinVar, and these were used as the final cohort for the current analysis. Results Of the 603 variants, 221 (37%) were classified as a variant of uncertain significance (VUS), 191 (32%) as pathogenic, and 34 (6%) as benign. The interpretation differed among reporting laboratories for 155 (26%). Conflicting interpretations were most frequently reported for CHEK2 and ATM, followed by RAD51C, PALB2, BARD1, NBN, and BRIP1. Among all participants, 56 of 518 (11%) had a variant with conflicting interpretations ranging from pathogenic/likely pathogenic to VUS, a discrepancy that may alter medical management. Conclusions Conflicting interpretation of genetic findings from multiplex panel testing used in clinical practice is frequent and may have implications for medical management decisions.

Background Lynch syndrome is caused by germline mismatch repair (MMR) gene mutations. The PREMM 1,2,6 model predicts the likelihood of a MMR gene mutation based on personal and family cancer history. Objective To compare strategies using PREMM 1,2,6 and tumour testing (microsatellite instability (MSI) and/or immunohistochemistry (IHC) staining) to identify mutation carriers. Design Data from population-based or clinic-based patients with colorectal cancers enrolled through the Colon Cancer Family Registry were analysed. Evaluation included MSI, IHC and germline mutation analysis for MLH1 , MSH2 , MSH6 and PMS2 . Personal and family cancer histories were used to calculate PREMM 1,2,6 predictions. Discriminative ability to identify carriers from non-carriers using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was assessed. Predictions were based on logistic regression models for (1) cancer assessment using PREMM 1,2,6 , (2) MSI, (3) IHC for loss of any MMR protein expression, (4) MSI+IHC, (5) PREMM 1,2,6 +MSI, (6) PREMM 1,2,6 +IHC, (7) PREMM 1,2,6 +IHC+MSI. Results Among 1651 subjects, 239 (14%) had mutations (90 MLH1 , 125 MSH2 , 24 MSH6 ). PREMM 1,2,6 discriminated well with AUC 0.90 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.92). MSI alone, IHC alone, or MSI+IHC each had lower AUCs: 0.77, 0.82 and 0.82, respectively. The added value of IHC+PREMM 1,2,6 was slightly greater than PREMM 1,2,6 +MSI (AUC 0.94 vs 0.93). Adding MSI to PREMM 1,2,6 +IHC did not improve discrimination. Conclusion PREMM 1,2,6 and IHC showed excellent performance in distinguishing mutation carriers from non-carriers and performed best when combined. MSI may have a greater role in distinguishing Lynch syndrome from other familial colorectal cancer subtypes among cases with high PREMM 1,2,6 scores where genetic evaluation does not disclose a MMR mutation.