Citations

Abstract Precision oncology is the practice of interpreting the clinical significance of observed molecular changes in patient neoplasms, potentially impacting medical decision making and care. This process is labor-intensive and (among other challenges) involves accurately translating between variation representation conventions from one resource to the next. For example, differences in representations of Copy Number Variation (CNV) from genomic regions, cytogenomic bands, or gene features create challenges in knowledge matching due to lack of standards covering all of these modalities of observed variation.The Global Alliance for Genomics and Health (GA4GH; ga4gh.org) is an international collaborative of genomic data sharing initiatives (Driver Projects) developing genomic data sharing standards within a human rights framework. GA4GH recently published the Variation Representation Specification (VRS; pronounced “verse”), a standard for the computational representation of biomolecular variation. VRS is a terminology, schema, and associated conventions for creating uniquely identifiable and federatable representations of molecular variation. VRS has formal data classes well-suited to differentiating between variation on a single molecule (e.g. tandem duplications) from variation measured at a systemic level (e.g. genome-wide copy number variation). In addition to molecular sequence variation, VRS also supports variation on cytogenetic coordinate systems and genes, making it well-suited to representing variation associated with cancer biomarkers.We demonstrate the use of VRS to model reported gene-associated CNVs from the AACR Project GENIE cohort, to aid in the computational discovery of evidence from clinico-genomic knowledgebases with genomic or cytogenomic CNV representations. We highlight the use case of knowledge matching to the Atlas of Genetics and Cytogenetics in Oncology and Haematology (“the Atlas”; atlasgeneticsoncology.org), a cytogenetics resource historically driven by user website navigation. Using VRS search tools we developed for the Variant Interpretation for Cancer Consortium (VICC; cancervariants.org) GA4GH Driver Project, we found that 64% of GENIE samples with reported CNVs matched clinically relevant knowledge in the Atlas. This work was enabled by programmatic search tools leveraging standard VRS object structures, demonstrating how VRS enables collection of real-world evidence across more resources without manual interpretation or custom normalization methods. We conclude with a survey of open-source tools supporting this analysis as well as search of other clinico-genomic knowledgebases with VRS, including CIViC (civicdb.org), BRCA Exchange (brcaexchange.org), and the Molecular Oncology Almanac (moalmanac.org). Citation Format: Matthew Cannon, Kori Kuzma, James Stevenson, Jiachen Liu, Colin O'Sullivan, Bimal P. Chaudhari, Matthew Brush, Robert R. Freimuth, Tristan Nelson, Michael Baudis, Obi L. Griffith, Malachi Griffith, Lawrence Babb, Melissa S. Cline, Xuelu Liu, Brian Walsh, Alex H. Wagner. Introduction of the GA4GH Variation Representation Specification (VRS) and supporting tools for discovery and exchange of clinical genomic and cytogenomic knowledge in cancers [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 1177.

Abstract Comprehensive interpretation of a patient's cancer genome is a cross-disciplinary process requiring the expertise of oncologists, molecular pathologists, genetic counselors, genomic scientists, and bioinformaticians. The Variant Interpretation for Cancer Consortium (VICC) has created a non-clinical forum for the variant interpretation process by connecting experts from multiple academic institutions and industry to create a Virtual Molecular Tumor Board (VMTB). During VICC-VMTB sessions, experts retrospectively discuss de-identified, challenging patient cases in the context of genomic interpretation guidelines to evaluate a patient's profile across several distinct components: genomic variants; disease context; therapeutic history; family history; demographic information; genomic assay information; and variant allele frequency. These components are processed through the prism of publically available knowledge and expertise of VMTB members, resulting in a broad spectrum of clinically relevant assertions about the patient's disease that may be of prognostic, diagnostic, or predictive relevance. Through these evaluations, the VICC-VMTB primarily works as a means of illuminating challenges in genomic interpretation and advancing the objectives of domain-specific VICC working groups. Examples of challenges that have been highlighted by the VICC-VMTB forum include: 1) inconsistent disease and therapy ontologies across resources are being addressed by Disease Harmonization & Drug Harmonization working groups, respectively; 2) use of machine-learning and natural language processing into clinical-grade variant interpretation are being addressed by the AI-Assisted Curation working group; 3) aggregation and harmonization of knowledgebase data into a centralized resource is being addressed by the Data Licensing and Variant Harmonization working groups; 4) inefficiencies in knowledgebase search functions are being addressed by the Search working group; 5) determination of accurate prediction of biological consequences of rare variants is being addressed by the In Silico Interpretation working group; and 6) standardization of genomic variant curation is being addressed by the Knowledge Curation and Interpretation Standards working group. These VICC working groups provide dedicated expert assemblies intended to specifically tackle these challenges, further increasing the breadth for which genomic information can be made useful in cancer variant interpretation. The VICC-VMTB has been a pertinent link between cancer genomes and clinical interpretation. We are confident VICC-VMTB will continue to be a gateway of acceleration and progress needed in the field of cancer interpretation to provide accurate and efficient answers for our patients in the future. Citation Format: Beth A. Pitel, Shruti Rao, Catherine Del Vecchio Fitz, Subha Madhavan, Rodrigo Dientsmann, Peter Horak, Ian King, Susan M. Mockus, Gordana Raca, Damian T. Rieke, Peter Rogan, Dmitriy Sonkin, David Tamborero, Ioannis S. Vlachos, Brian Walsh, Jeremy L. Warner, Malachi Griffith, Obi L. Griffith, Debyani Chakravarty, Alex H. Wagner. The Virtual Molecular Tumor Board of the Variant Interpretation for Cancer Consortium: A systematic gateway connecting cancer genome interpretation and progress in genomic knowledgebases in cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research 2020; 2020 Apr 27-28 and Jun 22-24. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(16 Suppl):Abstract nr 3222.

Abstract The use of clinical gene sequencing is now commonplace, and genome analysts and molecular pathologists are often tasked with the labor-intensive process of interpreting the clinical significance of large numbers of tumor variants. Numerous independent knowledgebases have been constructed to alleviate this manual burden, however these knowledgebases are non-interoperable. As a result, the analyst is left with a difficult tradeoff: for each knowledgebase used the analyst must understand the nuances particular to that resource and integrate its evidence accordingly when generating the clinical report, but for each knowledgebase omitted there is increased potential for missed findings of clinical significance.The Variant Interpretation for Cancer Consortium (VICC; cancervariants.org) was formed as a driver project of the Global Alliance for Genomics and Health (GA4GH; ga4gh.org) to address this concern. VICC members include representatives from several major somatic interpretation knowledgebases including CIViC, OncoKB, Jax-CKB, the Weill Cornell PMKB, the IRB-Barcelona Cancer Biomarkers Database, and others. Previously, the VICC built and reported on a harmonized meta-knowledgebase of 19,551 biomarker associations of harmonized variants, diseases, drugs, and evidence across the constituent resources.In that study, we analyzed the frequency with which the tumor samples from the AACR Project GENIE cohort would match to harmonized associations. Variant matches increased dramatically from 57% to 86% when broader matching to regions describing categorical variants were allowed. Unlike precise sequence variants with specified alternate alleles, categorical variants describe a collection of potential variants with a common feature, such as “V600” (non-valine alleles at the 600 residue), “Exon 20 mutations” (all non-silent mutations in exon 20), or “Gain-of-function” (hypermorphic alterations that activate or amplify gene activity). However, matching observed sequence variants to categorical variants is challenging, as the latter are typically only described as unstructured text. Here we describe the expressive and computational GA4GH Variation Representation specification (vr-spec.readthedocs.io), which we co-developed as members of the GA4GH Genomic Knowledge Standards work stream. This specification provides a schema for common, precise forms of variation (e.g. SNVs and Indels) and the method for computing identifiers from these objects. We highlight key aspects of the specification and our work to apply it to the characterization of categorical variation, showcasing the variant terminology and classification tools developed by the VICC to support this effort. These standards and tools are free, open-source, and extensible, overcoming barriers to standardized variant knowledge sharing and search. Citation Format: Alex H. Wagner, Reece K. Hart, Larry Babb, Robert R. Freimuth, Adam Coffman, Yonghao Liang, Beth Pitel, Angshumoy Roy, Matthew Brush, Jennifer Lee, Anna Lu, Thomas Coard, Shruti Rao, Deborah Ritter, Brian Walsh, Susan Mockus, Peter Horak, Ian King, Dmitriy Sonkin, Subha Madhavan, Gordana Raca, Debyani Chakravarty, Malachi Griffith, Obi L. Griffith. Harmonization standards from the Variant Interpretation for Cancer Consortium [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research 2020; 2020 Apr 27-28 and Jun 22-24. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(16 Suppl):Abstract nr 1096.

We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library database for articles published between January 1990 and December 2012. The update of this clinical practice guideline is based on 237 clinical trials, 54 reviews, and 23 meta-analyses on blood gas analysis (BGA) and hemoximetry. The following recommendations are made following the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation scoring system. BGA and hemoximetry are recommended for evaluating a patient's ventilatory, acid-base, and/or oxygenation status. BGA and hemoximetry are suggested for evaluating a patient's response to therapeutic interventions. BGA and hemoximetry are recommended for monitoring severity and progression of documented cardiopulmonary disease processes. Hemoximetry is recommended to determine the impact of dyshemoglobins on oxygenation. Capillary BGA is not recommended to determine oxygenation status. Central venous BGA and hemoximetry are suggested to determine oxygen consumption in the setting of early goal-directed therapies. For the assessment of oxygenation, a peripheral venous P O 2 is not recommended as a substitute for an arterial blood measurement (P aO 2 ). It is not recommended to use venous P CO 2 and pH as a substitute for arterial blood measurement of P aCO 2 and pH. It is suggested that hemoximetry is used in the detection and evaluation of shunts during diagnostic cardiac catheterization.

Background— Few data have evaluated physician adherence to cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention guidelines according to physician specialty or patient characteristics, particularly gender. Methods and Results— An online study of 500 randomly selected physicians (300 primary care physicians, 100 obstetricians/gynecologists, and 100 cardiologists) used a standardized questionnaire to assess awareness of, adoption of, and barriers to national CVD prevention guidelines by specialty. An experimental case study design tested physician accuracy and determinants of CVD risk level assignment and application of guidelines among high-, intermediate-, or low-risk patients. Intermediate-risk women, as assessed by the Framingham risk score, were significantly more likely to be assigned to a lower-risk category by primary care physicians than men with identical risk profiles ( P <0.0001), and trends were similar for obstetricians/gynecologists and cardiologists. Assignment of risk level significantly predicted recommendations for lifestyle and preventive pharmacotherapy. After adjustment for risk assignment, the impact of patient gender on preventive care was not significant except for less aspirin ( P <0.01) and more weight management recommended ( P <0.04) for intermediate-risk women. Physicians did not rate themselves as very effective in their ability to help patients prevent CVD. Fewer than 1 in 5 physicians knew that more women than men die each year from CVD. Conclusions— Perception of risk was the primary factor associated with CVD preventive recommendations. Gender disparities in recommendations for preventive therapy were explained largely by the lower perceived risk despite similar calculated risk for women versus men. Educational interventions for physicians are needed to improve the quality of CVD preventive care and lower morbidity and mortality from CVD for men and women.