Li Marilyn M, Cottrell Catherine E, Pullambhatla Mrudula, Roy Somak, Temple-Smolkin Robyn L, Turner Scott A, Wang Kai, Zhou Yunyun, Vnencak-Jones Cindy L
The Variant Interpretation Testing Across Laboratories (VITAL) Somatic Working Group of the Clinical Practice Committee, Association for Molecular Pathology, Rockville, Maryland; Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
The Variant Interpretation Testing Across Laboratories (VITAL) Somatic Working Group of the Clinical Practice Committee, Association for Molecular Pathology, Rockville, Maryland; Steve and Cindy Rasmussen Institute for Genomic Medicine, Nationwide Children's Hospital, Columbus, Ohio; Department of Pathology, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, Ohio.
J Mol Diagn. 2023 Feb;25(2):69-86. doi: 10.1016/j.jmoldx.2022.11.002. Epub 2022 Dec 9.
To assess the clinical implementation of the 2017 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, identify content that may result in classification inconsistencies, and evaluate implementation barriers, an Association for Molecular Pathology Working Group conducted variant interpretation challenges and a guideline implementation survey. A total of 134 participants participated in the variant interpretation challenges, consisting of 11 variants in four cancer cases. Results demonstrate 86% (range, 54% to 94%) of the respondents correctly classified clinically significant variants, variants of uncertain significance, and benign/likely benign variants; however, only 59% (range, 39% to 84%) of responses agreed with the working group's consensus intended responses regarding both tiers and categories of clinical significance. In the implementation survey, 71% (157/220) of respondents have implemented the 2017 guidelines for variant classification and reporting either with or without modifications. Collectively, this study demonstrates that, although they may not yet be optimized, the 2017 guideline recommendations are being adopted for standardized somatic variant classification. The working group identified significant areas for future guideline improvement, including the need for a more granular and comprehensive classification system and education resources to meet the growing needs of both laboratory professionals and medical oncologists.
为评估《2017年癌症序列变异解读与报告标准和指南:分子病理学协会、美国临床肿瘤学会和美国病理学家学会联合共识推荐》的临床实施情况,确定可能导致分类不一致的内容,并评估实施障碍,分子病理学协会工作组开展了变异解读挑战和指南实施调查。共有134名参与者参与了变异解读挑战,涉及四个癌症病例中的11个变异。结果显示,86%(范围为54%至94%)的受访者正确分类了具有临床意义的变异、意义未明的变异以及良性/可能良性的变异;然而,对于临床意义的层级和类别,只有59%(范围为39%至84%)的回答与工作组的共识预期回答一致。在实施调查中,71%(157/220)的受访者已实施了2017年变异分类和报告指南,有的进行了修改,有的未修改。总体而言,本研究表明,尽管2017年指南建议可能尚未优化,但正在被采用以实现标准化的体细胞变异分类。工作组确定了未来指南改进的重要领域,包括需要一个更细致、全面的分类系统以及教育资源,以满足实验室专业人员和医学肿瘤学家不断增长的需求。