Shao Kang, Wang Ruixia, Qu Shoufang, Zhang Wenxin, Yu Ting, Cao Boyang, Dai Pingping, Zhu Anna, Zhang Jianguang, Wang Juan, Wang Lusheng, Zhu Shida, Wu Kui, Yang Xuexi, Chang Xiaoyan, Chen Fang, Huang Jie
BGI-Shenzhen, Shenzhen, China.
Department of Computer Science, City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon, Hong Kong.
J Med Genet. 2022 Mar;59(3):230-236. doi: 10.1136/jmedgenet-2020-107360. Epub 2021 Jan 4.
High-quality interpretation of variants plays a critical role in the clinical practice of precision medicine. However, a comprehensive system to evaluate the quality and accuracy of variant interpretation has yet to be established. This study investigates the performance of an interpretation system in evaluating the capacities of interpretation among distinct laboratories in China. The evaluation system is based on a reference database that contains 750 different variants in / Evaluation was performed among 41 laboratories in China. We classified their performance into five levels. Only level A was considered qualified. This level allows for a 0.3% error rate for clinical decision-related misinterpretation; 26 of 41 laboratories (63%) met the qualified standard, while 7 laboratories were at levels D and E, which indicated egregious mistakes and systemic problems in variant interpretation. Due to strict quality demands, the interpretation of several variants was amended, which largely influenced the quality rate. The number of qualified laboratories would decrease from 26 to 17 if those incorrect recommended interpretations were not corrected. This evaluation system provides a potential approach for standardisation of variant interpretation and lowers the discordance of variant interpretation between different laboratories. A well-designed interpretation ability evaluation is essential to evaluate the interpretation level of laboratories before they provide service in real-world clinical settings.
高质量的变异解读在精准医学的临床实践中起着关键作用。然而,尚未建立一个全面的系统来评估变异解读的质量和准确性。本研究调查了一个解读系统在中国不同实验室评估解读能力方面的表现。该评估系统基于一个包含750种不同变异的参考数据库。在中国的41个实验室中进行了评估。我们将它们的表现分为五个等级。只有A级被认为合格。这个等级允许临床决策相关误读的错误率为0.3%;41个实验室中有26个(63%)达到了合格标准,而7个实验室处于D级和E级,这表明在变异解读中存在严重错误和系统性问题。由于严格的质量要求,对几个变异的解读进行了修正,这在很大程度上影响了质量率。如果不纠正那些错误的推荐解读,合格实验室的数量将从26个减少到17个。这个评估系统为变异解读的标准化提供了一种潜在方法,并降低了不同实验室之间变异解读的不一致性。精心设计的解读能力评估对于在实验室在实际临床环境中提供服务之前评估其解读水平至关重要。