A review of a multifactorial probability‐based model for classification of BRCA1 and BRCA2 variants of uncertain significance (VUS)

Clinical mutation screening of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes for the presence of germline inactivating mutations is used to identify individuals at elevated risk of breast and ovarian cancer. Variants identified during screening are usually classified as pathogenic (increased risk of cancer) or not pathogenic (no increased risk of cancer). However, a significant proportion of genetic tests yields variants of uncertain significance (VUS) that have undefined risk of cancer. Individuals carrying these VUS cannot benefit from individualized cancer risk assessment. Recently, a quantitative “posterior probability model” for assessing the clinical relevance of VUS in BRCA1 or BRCA2, which integrates multiple forms of genetic evidence has been developed. Here, we provide a detailed review of this model. We describe the components of the model and explain how these can be combined to calculate a posterior probability of pathogenicity for each VUS. We explain how the model can be applied to public data and provide tables that list the VUS that have been classified as not pathogenic or pathogenic using this method. While we use BRCA1 and BRCA2 VUS as examples, the method can be used as a framework for classification of the pathogenicity of VUS in other cancer genes. Hum Mutat 33:8–21, 2012. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

[1]  F. Couch,et al.  Splicing and multifactorial analysis of intronic BRCA1 and BRCA2 sequence variants identifies clinically significant splicing aberrations up to 12 nucleotides from the intron/exon boundary , 2011, Human mutation.

[2]  Fergus J Couch,et al.  A Computational Method to Classify Variants of Uncertain Significance Using Functional Assay Data with Application to BRCA1 , 2011, Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

[3]  J. Glover,et al.  Comprehensive analysis of missense variations in the BRCT domain of BRCA1 by structural and functional assays. , 2010, Cancer research.

[4]  A. Toland,et al.  Characterization of BRCA1 ring finger variants of uncertain significance , 2010, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[5]  M. Tejada,et al.  LOH analysis should not be used as a tool to assess whether UVs of BRCA1/2 are pathogenic or not , 2010, Familial Cancer.

[6]  Suhwan Chang,et al.  Expression of human BRCA1 variants in mouse ES cells allows functional analysis of BRCA1 mutations. , 2009, The Journal of clinical investigation.

[7]  Leila Mohammadi,et al.  Bmc Cancer , 2022 .

[8]  P. Devilee,et al.  A method to assess the clinical significance of unclassified variants in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes based on cancer family history , 2009, Breast Cancer Research.

[9]  F. Couch,et al.  Clinically applicable models to characterize BRCA1 and BRCA2 variants of uncertain significance. , 2008, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[10]  Alun Thomas,et al.  Classification of rare missense substitutions, using risk surfaces, with genetic‐ and molecular‐epidemiology applications , 2008, Human mutation.

[11]  A. Spurdle,et al.  Sequence variant classification and reporting: recommendations for improving the interpretation of cancer susceptibility genetic test results , 2008, Human mutation.

[12]  N. de Wind,et al.  Tumor characteristics as an analytic tool for classifying genetic variants of uncertain clinical significance , 2008, Human mutation.

[13]  Douglas F Easton,et al.  Genetic evidence and integration of various data sources for classifying uncertain variants into a single model , 2008, Human mutation.

[14]  S. Sharan,et al.  Mouse embryonic stem cell–based functional assay to evaluate mutations in BRCA2 , 2008, Nature Medicine.

[15]  S. Bull,et al.  Expression profiling of familial breast cancers demonstrates higher expression of FGFR2 in BRCA2-associated tumors , 2008, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[16]  Kiley J. Johnson,et al.  Functional assays for classification of BRCA2 variants of uncertain significance. , 2008, Cancer research.

[17]  Sue Healey,et al.  Clinical classification of BRCA1 and BRCA2 DNA sequence variants: the value of cytokeratin profiles and evolutionary analysis--a report from the kConFab Investigators. , 2008, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[18]  H A Risch,et al.  The BOADICEA model of genetic susceptibility to breast and ovarian cancers: updates and extensions , 2008, British Journal of Cancer.

[19]  Fergus J Couch,et al.  A systematic genetic assessment of 1,433 sequence variants of unknown clinical significance in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 breast cancer-predisposition genes. , 2007, American journal of human genetics.

[20]  J. Hopper,et al.  Genetic and histopathologic evaluation of BRCA1 and BRCA2 DNA sequence variants of unknown clinical significance. , 2006, Cancer research.

[21]  A. Zharkikh,et al.  Comprehensive statistical study of 452 BRCA1 missense substitutions with classification of eight recurrent substitutions as neutral , 2005, Journal of Medical Genetics.

[22]  F. Couch,et al.  Integrated evaluation of DNA sequence variants of unknown clinical significance: application to BRCA1 and BRCA2. , 2004, American journal of human genetics.

[23]  M. J. van de Vijver,et al.  The pathology of familial breast cancer: predictive value of immunohistochemical markers estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, HER-2, and p53 in patients with mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2. , 2002, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.