Young William J, Maung Soe, Ahmet Selda, Kirkby Claire, Ives Charlotte, Schilling Richard J, Lowe Martin, Lambiase Pier D
Barts Heart Centre, St Bartholomew's Hospital, London, United Kingdom; Centre for Clinical Pharmacology and Precision Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Barts Heart Centre, St Bartholomew's Hospital, London, United Kingdom.
Heart Rhythm. 2024 Jun;21(6):903-910. doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2024.01.008. Epub 2024 Jan 11.
Genetic testing in the inherited arrhythmia clinic informs risk stratification, clinical management, and family screening. Periodic review of variant classification is recommended as supporting evidence accrues over time. However, there is limited reporting of real-world data on the frequency and impact of variant reclassification.
The purpose of this study was to determine the burden of variant reclassification in our inherited arrhythmia clinic and the impact on clinical management.
Genetic testing reports for patients referred to our clinic from 2004-2020 were reviewed. Reported variants were reinvestigated using ClinVar, VarSome, and a literature review. Classification was updated using the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) criteria and tested for association with arrhythmic events and modification of medical management.
We identified 517 patients (median age 37 years) who underwent gene panel testing. A variant of uncertain significance (VUS) was reported for 94 patients (18.2%) and more commonly identified when using large gene panels (P <.001). A total of 28 of 87 unique VUSs (32.2%) were reclassified to pathogenic/likely pathogenic (n = 11) or benign/likely benign (n = 17). Of 138 originally reported pathogenic variants, 7 (5.1%) lacked support using ACMG criteria. Variant reclassification was not associated with arrhythmic events; however, it did impact genotype-specific counseling and future therapeutic options.
In our large real-world patient cohort, we identify a clinically important proportion of both pathogenic variants and VUSs with evidence for reclassification. These findings highlight the need for informed pretest counseling, a regular structured review of variants reported in genetic testing, and the potential benefits to patients for supporting genotype-guided therapy.
遗传性心律失常门诊的基因检测有助于风险分层、临床管理和家族筛查。随着时间的推移,支持证据不断积累,建议定期对变异分类进行审查。然而,关于变异重新分类的频率和影响的真实世界数据报告有限。
本研究的目的是确定我们遗传性心律失常门诊中变异重新分类的负担及其对临床管理的影响。
回顾了2004年至2020年转诊至我们门诊的患者的基因检测报告。使用ClinVar、VarSome和文献综述对报告的变异进行重新调查。根据美国医学遗传学与基因组学学会(ACMG)标准更新分类,并测试其与心律失常事件的关联以及对医疗管理的改变。
我们确定了517例接受基因panel检测的患者(中位年龄37岁)。94例患者(18.2%)报告了意义未明的变异(VUS),使用大型基因panel时更常发现(P<.001)。87个独特的VUS中共有28个(32.2%)被重新分类为致病/可能致病(n = 11)或良性/可能良性(n = 17)。在最初报告的138个致病变异中,7个(5.1%)不符合ACMG标准。变异重新分类与心律失常事件无关;然而,它确实影响了基因型特异性咨询和未来的治疗选择。
在我们这个大型真实世界患者队列中,我们发现了临床上重要比例的致病变异和VUS,有重新分类的证据。这些发现强调了进行充分的检测前咨询、对基因检测报告的变异进行定期结构化审查以及支持基因型指导治疗对患者的潜在益处的必要性。