A large number of variants identified through clinical genetic testing in disease susceptibility genes, are of uncertain significance (VUS). Following the recommendations of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) and Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP), the frequency in case-control datasets (PS4 criterion), can inform their interpretation. We present a novel case-control likelihood ratio-based method that incorporates gene-specific age-related penetrance. We demonstrate the utility of this method in the analysis of simulated and real datasets. In the analyses of simulated data, the likelihood ratio method was more powerful compared to other methods. Likelihood ratios were calculated for a case-control dataset of BRCA1 and BRCA2 variants from the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC), and compared with logistic regression results. A larger number of variants reached evidence in favor of pathogenicity, and a substantial number of variants had evidence against pathogenicity - findings that would not have been reached using other case-control analysis methods. Our novel method provides greater power to classify rare variants compared to classical case-control methods. As an initiative from the ENIGMA Analytical Working Group, we provide user-friendly scripts and pre-formatted excel calculators for implementation of the method for rare variants in BRCA1, BRCA2 and other high-risk genes with known penetrance.

For genes with reliable estimates of disease risk associated with loss-of-function variants, case-control data can be used to estimate the proportion of variants of typical risk effect for defined groups of variants, of relevance for variant classification. A calculation was derived for a maximum likelihood estimate of the proportion of pathogenic variants of typical effect from case-control data and applied to rare variant counts for ATM, BARD1, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, PALB2, RAD51C, and RAD51D from published breast cancer studies: BEACCON (5770 familial cases and 5741 controls) and breast cancer risk after diagnostic sequencing (60,466 familial and population-based cases and 53,461 controls). There was significant evidence of pathogenic variants among rare noncoding variants, in particular deeper intronic variants, for BRCA1 (13%, p = 8.3 × 10-7 ), BRCA2 (6%, p = 0.016) and PALB2 (13%, p = 0.001). The estimated proportion of pathogenic missense variants varied markedly between genes, generally with enrichment in familial cases, for example, 9% for BRCA2 versus 60%-90% for CHEK2. Stratifying missense variants by position indicated that, for most genes, location within a functional domain significantly predicted pathogenicity, whereas location outside domains provided robust evidence against pathogenicity. Our approach provides novel insights into the spectrum of pathogenic variants of specific breast cancer genes and has wider application to inform gene-focused specifications of American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG)/Association of Molecular Pathology (AMP) codes for variant curation.

For the past two decades, the guidelines put forth by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) detailing providers\' clinical responsibility to recontact patients have remained mostly unchanged, despite evolving variant interpretation practices which have yielded substantial rates of reclassification and amended reports. In fact, there is little information regarding genetic counselors\' roles in informing patients of reclassified variants, or the process by which these amended reports are currently being handled. In this study, we developed a survey to measure current experiences with amended variant reports and preferences for ideal management, which was completed by 96 genetic counselors from the United States and Canada. All respondents indicated they were the individuals responsible for disclosing initial positive genetic testing results and any clinically actionable reclassified variant reports, and over half (56%) received at least a few amended variant reports each year. Nearly a quarter (20/87) of respondents reported having a standard operating procedure (SOP) for managing amended reports and all were very satisfied (12/20) or satisfied (8/20) with the SOP. Of those without a protocol, 76% (51/67) would prefer to have an SOP implemented. Respondents reported a preference for (1) laboratories to send amended variant reports directly to the genetic counselor or ordering physician through email or an online portal, and (2) notification to patients ideally occurring through a phone call. In the event that the original genetic counselor is inaccessible, respondents reported a preference for reports to be sent directly to another genetic counselor (36%) on the team or the clinic in general (27%). Information from this study provides insight into the current practices of genetic counselors as applied to amended reports and what improvements may increase the efficiency of the reporting process. Moreover, these results suggest a need for an updated statement addressing duty to recontact, specifically as it applies to amended variant reports.

ATP1A2 gene mutation has been indicated to cause alternating hemiplegia of childhood (AHC); however, limited evidence supports this relationship so far.
We reported two Chinese patients with de novo ATP1A2 variants (c.970G>A and c.889G>A). Both patients presented with episodes of alternating hemiplegia, seizures and mild developmental delay. Brain magnetic resonance imaging revealed abnormal signals in both patients.
The new genetic evidence we reported here strengthened the gene-disease relationship, and the gene curation level between ATP1A2 and AHC became \"Moderate\" following the ClinGen Standard Operation Procedure. Consequently, the two variants can be reclassified as likely pathogenic.

BACKGROUND: The role of deep intronic variants in hereditary cancer susceptibility has been largely understudied. Previously, the BRCA2 c.6937 + 594T>G variant has been shown to preferentially promote the inclusion of a 95 nucleotide cryptic exon and to introduce a premature termination codon. Our objective was to further assess the pathogenicity of the BRCA2 c.6937 + 594T>G deep intronic variant.
METHODS: We examined the association between BRCA2 c.6937 + 594T>G and breast cancer (BC) risk in 464 BC cases and 497 noncancer controls from Puerto Rico.
RESULTS: The overall frequency of the G allele was 2.1% in this population. There was no association between the TG/GG genotypes and BC risk in the uncorrected model and after correcting for confounders. There was only one carrier of the GG genotype. This individual did not have personal or family history of cancer and did not meet the National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria for hereditary cancer genetic testing.
CONCLUSIONS: Although previous work has demonstrated that the BRCA2 c.6937 + 594T>G variant affects splicing, this association study does not support a pathogenic role for the BRCA2 c.6937 + 594T>G intronic variant in breast and ovarian cancer syndrome susceptibility. Furthermore, it emphasizes the need to take into account multiple diverse populations in association studies for the assessment of variant pathogenicity.

Based on current consensus guidelines and standard practice, many genetic variants detected in clinical testing are classified as disease causing based on their predicted impact on the normal expression or function of the gene in the absence of additional data. However, our laboratory has identified a subset of such variants in hereditary cancer genes for which compelling contradictory evidence emerged after the initial evaluation following the first observation of the variant. Three representative examples of variants in BRCA1, BRCA2 and MSH2 that are predicted to disrupt splicing, prematurely truncate the protein, or remove the start codon were evaluated for pathogenicity by analyzing clinical data with multiple classification algorithms. Available clinical data for all three variants contradicts the expected pathogenic classification. These variants illustrate potential pitfalls associated with standard approaches to variant classification as well as the challenges associated with monitoring data, updating classifications, and reporting potentially contradictory interpretations to the clinicians responsible for translating test outcomes to appropriate clinical action. It is important to address these challenges now as the model for clinical testing moves toward the use of large multi-gene panels and whole exome/genome analysis, which will dramatically increase the number of genetic variants identified.