Standardization of Somatic Variant Classifications in Solid and Haematological Tumours by a Two-Level Approach of Biological and Clinical Classes: An Initiative of the Belgian ComPerMed Expert Panel

In most diagnostic laboratories, targeted next-generation sequencing (NGS) is currently the default assay for the detection of somatic variants in solid as well as haematological tumours. Independent of the method, the final outcome is a list of variants that differ from the human genome reference sequence of which some may relate to the establishment of the tumour in the patient. A critical point towards a uniform patient management is the assignment of the biological contribution of each variant to the malignancy and its subsequent clinical impact in a specific malignancy. These so-called biological and clinical classifications of somatic variants are currently not standardized and are vastly dependent on the subjective analysis of each laboratory. This subjectivity can thus result in a different classification and subsequent clinical interpretation of the same variant. Therefore, the ComPerMed panel of Belgian experts in cancer diagnostics set up a working group with the goal to harmonize the biological classification and clinical interpretation of somatic variants detected by NGS. This effort resulted in the establishment of a uniform, two-level classification workflow system that should enable high consistency in diagnosis, prognosis, treatment and follow-up of cancer patients. Variants are first classified into a tumour-independent biological five class system and subsequently in a four tier ACMG clinical classification. Here, we describe the ComPerMed workflow in detail including examples for each step of the pipeline. Moreover, this workflow can be implemented in variant classification software tools enabling automatic reporting of NGS data, independent of panel, method or analysis software.

[1]  Trevor J Pugh,et al.  Integration of Technical, Bioinformatic, and Variant Assessment Approaches in the Validation of a Targeted Next-Generation Sequencing Panel for Myeloid Malignancies. , 2017, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[2]  Marilyn M. Li,et al.  Standards and Guidelines for the Interpretation and Reporting of Sequence Variants in Cancer: A Joint Consensus Recommendation of the Association for Molecular Pathology, American Society of Clinical Oncology, and College of American Pathologists. , 2017, The Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD.

[3]  Bale,et al.  Standards and Guidelines for the Interpretation of Sequence Variants: A Joint Consensus Recommendation of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association for Molecular Pathology , 2015, Genetics in Medicine.

[4]  M. Esteller,et al.  Epigenetic inactivation of tumour suppressor coding and non-coding genes in human cancer: an update , 2017, Open Biology.

[5]  Heidi L Rehm,et al.  Updated recommendation for the benign stand‐alone ACMG/AMP criterion , 2018, Human mutation.

[6]  Shujiro Okuda,et al.  Next generation sequencing‐based gene panel tests for the management of solid tumors , 2018, Cancer science.

[7]  J. Cigudosa,et al.  Spanish Guidelines for the use of targeted deep sequencing in myelodysplastic syndromes and chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia , 2019, British journal of haematology.

[8]  Dmitriy Sonkin,et al.  TP53 Variations in Human Cancers: New Lessons from the IARC TP53 Database and Genomics Data , 2016, Human mutation.

[9]  N. Socci,et al.  Accelerating Discovery of Functional Mutant Alleles in Cancer. , 2018, Cancer discovery.

[10]  F. Supek,et al.  The rules and impact of nonsense-mediated mRNA decay in human cancers , 2016, Nature Genetics.

[11]  Madhuri Hegde,et al.  Reassessment of Genomic Sequence Variation to Harmonize Interpretation for Personalized Medicine. , 2016, American journal of human genetics.

[12]  Angie Duy Vo,et al.  Identifying fusion transcripts using next generation sequencing , 2016, Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. RNA.

[13]  Jing Huang,et al.  Non‐small cell lung cancer harboring a rare EGFR L747P mutation showing intrinsic resistance to both gefitinib and osimertinib (AZD9291): A case report , 2018, Thoracic cancer.

[14]  C. von Kalle,et al.  Precision oncology based on omics data: The NCT Heidelberg experience , 2017, International journal of cancer.

[15]  K. Stamatopoulos,et al.  ERIC recommendations for TP53 mutation analysis in chronic lymphocytic leukemia—update on methodological approaches and results interpretation , 2018, Leukemia.

[16]  Bijal A. Parikh,et al.  Optimization of Population Frequency Cut-offs for Filtering Common Germline Polymorphisms from Tumor-Only Next-Generation Sequencing Data. , 2019, The Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD.

[17]  Raymond Dalgleish,et al.  HGVS Recommendations for the Description of Sequence Variants: 2016 Update , 2016, Human mutation.

[18]  Christopher J. Richardson,et al.  Mutational patterns in oncogenes and tumour suppressors. , 2016, Biochemical Society transactions.

[19]  Keith Nykamp,et al.  Sherloc: a comprehensive refinement of the ACMG–AMP variant classification criteria , 2017, Genetics in Medicine.

[20]  S. van Vooren,et al.  Somatic Tumor Variant Filtration Strategies to Optimize Tumor-Only Molecular Profiling Using Targeted Next-Generation Sequencing Panels. , 2019, The Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD.

[21]  Melanie Boerries,et al.  Variant classification in precision oncology , 2019, International journal of cancer.

[22]  C. Cole,et al.  COSMIC (Catalogue of Somatic Mutations in Cancer) , 2014 .

[23]  Weiwei Ning,et al.  Exon 19 L747P mutation presented as a primary resistance to EGFR-TKI: a case report. , 2016, Journal of thoracic disease.

[24]  Birgit Funke,et al.  ClinGen Variant Curation Expert Panel experiences and standardized processes for disease and gene‐level specification of the ACMG/AMP guidelines for sequence variant interpretation , 2018, Human mutation.

[25]  Suzanne Kamel-Reid,et al.  A classification system for clinical relevance of somatic variants identified in molecular profiling of cancer , 2015, Genetics in Medicine.

[26]  Yunyun Ni,et al.  Houston Methodist Variant Viewer: An Application to Support Clinical Laboratory Interpretation of Next-generation Sequencing Data for Cancer , 2017, Journal of pathology informatics.

[27]  R. Luthra,et al.  Next-Generation Sequencing in Clinical Molecular Diagnostics of Cancer: Advantages and Challenges , 2015, Cancers.

[28]  B. Ebert,et al.  Clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential and its distinction from myelodysplastic syndromes. , 2015, Blood.

[29]  Rodrigo Dienstmann,et al.  Standardized decision support in next generation sequencing reports of somatic cancer variants , 2014, Molecular oncology.

[30]  Vijai Joseph,et al.  Conflicting Interpretation of Genetic Variants and Cancer Risk by Commercial Laboratories as Assessed by the Prospective Registry of Multiplex Testing , 2016, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[31]  K. Kinzler,et al.  Cancer Genome Landscapes , 2013, Science.

[32]  N. Schultz,et al.  A framework to rank genomic alterations as targets for cancer precision medicine: the ESMO Scale for Clinical Actionability of molecular Targets (ESCAT) , 2018, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[33]  Peter Horak,et al.  Integrating next-generation sequencing into clinical oncology: strategies, promises and pitfalls , 2016, ESMO Open.

[34]  Dennis C. Friedrich,et al.  Whole-exome sequencing and clinical interpretation of formalin-fixed , paraffin-embedded tumor samples to guide precision cancer medicine , 2014 .

[35]  Erdogan Taskesen,et al.  Prognostic impact, concurrent genetic mutations, and gene expression features of AML with CEBPA mutations in a cohort of 1182 cytogenetically normal AML patients: further evidence for CEBPA double mutant AML as a distinctive disease entity. , 2011, Blood.

[36]  S. Puig,et al.  Prevalence of pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants in the 24 cancer genes of the ACMG Secondary Findings v2.0 list in a large cancer cohort and ethnicity-matched controls , 2018, Genome Medicine.

[37]  M. Chiarini,et al.  CEBPA–double-mutated acute myeloid leukemia displays a unique phenotypic profile: a reliable screening method and insight into biological features , 2016, Haematologica.

[38]  Linda Jo Bone Jeng,et al.  An openly available online tool for implementing the ACMG/AMP standards and guidelines for the interpretation of sequence variants , 2016, Genetics in Medicine.

[39]  Heather Mason-Suares,et al.  The current state of clinical interpretation of sequence variants. , 2017, Current opinion in genetics & development.