In the context of cancer predisposition syndromes, it is widely known that the correct interpretation of germline variants identified in multigene panel testing is essential for adequate genetic counseling and clinical decision making, in which variants of uncertain significance (VUS) are not considered actionable findings. Thus, their periodic re-evaluation using appropriate guidelines is notably important. In the present study, we compared the performance of the main variant classification guidelines (ACMG, Sherloc and ENIGMA) in variant reassessment, using as input a BRCA1/2 VUS case series (retrospective analysis) from Brazil, an ethnically diverse and admixed country with substantial challenges in VUS reclassification. As main findings, two of the 15 VUS analyzed were reclassified as likely pathogenic by the 3 guidelines, BRCA1 c.4987-3C > G (rs397509213) and BRCA2 c.7868A > G (rs80359012). Moreover, challenges in variant classification and reassessment are described and additional in silico data about structural impact of the variant BRCA2 c.7868A > G are provided. We hypothesize that the establishment of a framework to reassess VUS could improve this process in health centers that have not yet implemented this practice. Results of this study underscore that periodic monitoring of the functional, clinical, and bioinformatics data of a VUS by a multidisciplinary team are of utmost importance in clinical practice. When there is a specific guideline for a given gene, such as ENIGMA for BRCA1/2, it should be considered the first option for variant assessment. Finally, recruitment of VUS carriers and their relatives to participate in variant segregation studies and publication of VUS reclassification results in the international scientific literature should be encouraged.

The knowledge used to classify genetic variants is continually evolving, and the classification can change on the basis of newly available data. Although up-to-date variant classification is essential for clinical management, reproductive planning, and identifying at-risk family members, there is no consistent practice across laboratories or clinicians on how or under what circumstances to perform variant reinterpretation.
We conducted exploratory focus groups (N = 142) and surveys (N = 1753) with stakeholders involved in the process of variant reinterpretation (laboratory directors, clinical geneticists, genetic counselors, nongenetic providers, and patients/parents) to assess opinions on key issues, including initiation of reinterpretation, variants to report, termination of the responsibility to reinterpret, and concerns about consent, cost, and liability.
Stakeholders widely agreed that there should be no fixed termination point to the responsibility to reinterpret a previously reported genetic variant. There were significant concerns about liability and lack of agreement about many logistical aspects of variant reinterpretation.
Our findings suggest a need to (1) develop consensus and (2) create transparency and awareness about the roles and responsibilities of parties involved in variant reinterpretation. These data provide a foundation for developing guidelines on variant reinterpretation that can aid in the development of a low-cost, scalable, and accessible approach.

Recent guidance suggested modified DNA variant pathogenicity assignments based on genome-wide allele rarity. Different a priori probabilities of pathogenicity operate where patients already have clinical diagnoses, and are found to have a very rare variant in a gene known to cause their disease, compared to predictive testing of a clinically unaffected individual. We tested new recommendations from the ClinGen Sequence Variant Interpretation Working Group for ClinVar-listed, loss-of-function variants meeting the very strong evidence of pathogenicity criterion [PVS1] in genes for 3 specific diseases where causal gene identification can modify clinical care of an individual- Von Willebrand disease, cystic fibrosis and hereditary haemorrhagic telangiectasia. Across these diseases, current rules leave 20/1,278 (1.6%) of loss-of-function variants as variants of uncertain significance (VUS that may not be reported to clinicians), and 207/1,278 (17.2%) as likely pathogenic. Applying the new ClinGen rule enabling PVS1 and the allele rarity criterion PM2 to delineate likely pathogenicity still left 8/1,278 (0.9%) as VUS (reflecting non-PVS1 calls by the submitters), and the majority of null alleles meeting PVS1 as merely likely pathogenic. We favour an approach whereby, for PVS1 variants in patients who personally meet the phenotypic PP4 criterion for a disease where casual variants are commonly family-specific, that PM2 is upgraded to permit a pathogenic call. Of 1,278 ClinVar-listed frameshift, nonsense and canonical splice site variants that met PVS1 in the 3 conditions, 16.0% (204/1,278) would be newly designated as pathogenic, avoiding misinterpretation outside of clinical genetics communities. We suggest further discussion around variant assessment across different clinical applications, potentially guided by PP4 alerts to distinguish personal versus family phenotypic history.

BACKGROUND: Although BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) genetic testing plays an important role in determining treatment modalities in patients with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, sequence variants with unknown clinical significance or variant of uncertain significance (VUS) have limited use in medical decision-making. With vast quantities of gene-related data being updated, the clinical significance of VUS may change over time. We reinterpreted the sequence variant previously reported as BRCA1/2 VUS results in patients with breast or ovarian cancer and assessed whether the clinical significance of VUS was changed.
METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed medical records of 423 breast or ovarian cancer patients who underwent BRCA1/2 genetic testing from 2010 to 2017. The VUSs in BRCA1/2 were reanalyzed using the 2015 American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association for Molecular Pathology standards and guidelines (ACMG/AMP 2015 guidelines) and the VUS was reclassified into five categories: \"pathogenic\", \"likely pathogenic\", \"VUS\", \"likely benign\", and \"benign\".
RESULTS: A total of 75 patients (48 sequence types of VUS) were identified as carrying either one or more VUS in BRCA1/2. Among the 75 patients, two patients (2.7%) were reclassified as \"likely pathogenic\", 30 patients (40.0%) were reclassified as either \"benign\" or \"likely benign\", and the remaining 43 patients (57.3%) were still classified as VUS category.
CONCLUSIONS: Since the clinical significance of VUS in BRCA1/2 may vary from time to time, reinterpretation of the VUS results could contribute to clinical decision-making.