Understanding how gene-disease relationships can impact clinical utility: adaptations and challenges in hereditary cancer testing.

IF 10.4 1区 生物学 Q1 GENETICS & HEREDITY
Jennifer Herrera-Mullar, Carolyn Horton, Amybeth Weaver, Meghan Towne, Jennifer M Huang, Grace E VanNoy, Steven M Harrison, Bess Wayburn
{"title":"Understanding how gene-disease relationships can impact clinical utility: adaptations and challenges in hereditary cancer testing.","authors":"Jennifer Herrera-Mullar, Carolyn Horton, Amybeth Weaver, Meghan Towne, Jennifer M Huang, Grace E VanNoy, Steven M Harrison, Bess Wayburn","doi":"10.1186/s13073-025-01499-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Defining gene-disease relationships (GDRs) influences the clinical utility of hereditary cancer predisposition (HCP) multigene panel testing (MGPT) results, as variant classification relies directly on gene-disease characterization. GDR characterization for HCP is challenging due to disease prevalence, incomplete penetrance, and heterogeneity. There is insufficient data showing how gene-disease validity (GDV) scores of HCP genes affect variant classification and how GDV scores change over time. Though these issues determine the results of HCP-MGPT, their impact on short- and long-term clinical utility has not been explored in-depth.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using an evidence-based GDV framework, genes were classified into five standardized GDV categories at the time of panel addition. We curated changes in GDV scores and classifications for HCP-MGPT over 7 years. The corresponding impact on the frequency of positive and variant of uncertain significance (VUS) results was evaluated by GDV score.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Positive results were most common in Definitive evidence genes (31.5%), with none in Limited evidence genes (0%). Genes with Definitive GDRs (n = 42) remained Definitive, while most genes with Strong (6/10, 60%) and Moderate (19/24, 80%) GDRs changed categories, 8 (23.5%) of which received a clinically significant GDR downgrade. GDRs associated with low-moderate risk of breast cancer were significantly more likely to be downgraded compared to GDRs associated with rarer, high-penetrance specific phenotypes (p < 0.0001). Downgrades for all GDRs were due to new published data and updates to the GDV framework (77%, 10/13), with 23% (3/13) due to framework updates alone. Including Limited evidence genes on MGPT increased the VUS frequency by 13.7% percentage points.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Positive and VUS results varied by GDV category, and Limited evidence genes did not contribute to diagnostic yield. No Limited evidence genes in the category for ≥ 3 years (n = 8) were upgraded, indicating that including these genes on HCP-MGPT provides limited long-term clinical utility. Our data highlight that GDV assessment for HCP requires robust evidence and must account for variable disease penetrance and elevated prevalence in the population. Balancing the availability of a comprehensive gene menu and transparency surrounding clinical utility of novel genes will maximize identification of high-risk patients while reducing the risk of misdiagnosis through clinical false-positive results.</p>","PeriodicalId":12645,"journal":{"name":"Genome Medicine","volume":"17 1","pages":"73"},"PeriodicalIF":10.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12220650/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Genome Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13073-025-01499-5","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GENETICS & HEREDITY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Defining gene-disease relationships (GDRs) influences the clinical utility of hereditary cancer predisposition (HCP) multigene panel testing (MGPT) results, as variant classification relies directly on gene-disease characterization. GDR characterization for HCP is challenging due to disease prevalence, incomplete penetrance, and heterogeneity. There is insufficient data showing how gene-disease validity (GDV) scores of HCP genes affect variant classification and how GDV scores change over time. Though these issues determine the results of HCP-MGPT, their impact on short- and long-term clinical utility has not been explored in-depth.

Methods: Using an evidence-based GDV framework, genes were classified into five standardized GDV categories at the time of panel addition. We curated changes in GDV scores and classifications for HCP-MGPT over 7 years. The corresponding impact on the frequency of positive and variant of uncertain significance (VUS) results was evaluated by GDV score.

Results: Positive results were most common in Definitive evidence genes (31.5%), with none in Limited evidence genes (0%). Genes with Definitive GDRs (n = 42) remained Definitive, while most genes with Strong (6/10, 60%) and Moderate (19/24, 80%) GDRs changed categories, 8 (23.5%) of which received a clinically significant GDR downgrade. GDRs associated with low-moderate risk of breast cancer were significantly more likely to be downgraded compared to GDRs associated with rarer, high-penetrance specific phenotypes (p < 0.0001). Downgrades for all GDRs were due to new published data and updates to the GDV framework (77%, 10/13), with 23% (3/13) due to framework updates alone. Including Limited evidence genes on MGPT increased the VUS frequency by 13.7% percentage points.

Conclusions: Positive and VUS results varied by GDV category, and Limited evidence genes did not contribute to diagnostic yield. No Limited evidence genes in the category for ≥ 3 years (n = 8) were upgraded, indicating that including these genes on HCP-MGPT provides limited long-term clinical utility. Our data highlight that GDV assessment for HCP requires robust evidence and must account for variable disease penetrance and elevated prevalence in the population. Balancing the availability of a comprehensive gene menu and transparency surrounding clinical utility of novel genes will maximize identification of high-risk patients while reducing the risk of misdiagnosis through clinical false-positive results.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

了解基因疾病关系如何影响临床应用:遗传性癌症检测的适应和挑战。
背景:定义基因-疾病关系(GDRs)影响遗传性癌症易感性(HCP)多基因面板检测(MGPT)结果的临床应用,因为变异分类直接依赖于基因-疾病特征。由于疾病患病率、不完全外显率和异质性,HCP的GDR表征具有挑战性。没有足够的数据显示HCP基因的基因-疾病效度(GDV)评分如何影响变异分类以及GDV评分如何随时间变化。虽然这些问题决定了HCP-MGPT的结果,但它们对短期和长期临床效用的影响尚未深入探讨。方法:采用基于证据的GDV框架,在添加面板时将基因划分为5个标准化的GDV类别。我们整理了7年来HCP-MGPT的GDV评分和分类的变化。通过GDV评分评估对阳性和不确定显著性变异(VUS)结果频率的相应影响。结果:明确证据基因阳性最多(31.5%),有限证据基因无阳性(0%)。具有最终GDR的基因(n = 42)保持最终GDR,而大多数具有强(6/10,60%)和中等(19/24,80%)GDR的基因改变了分类,其中8个(23.5%)基因的GDR被临床显著降级。与与更罕见、高外显率特异性表型相关的GDRs相比,与中低风险乳腺癌相关的GDRs更有可能被降级(p)。结论:阳性和VUS结果因GDV类别而异,有限证据基因对诊断结果没有贡献。没有有限的证据表明,在≥3年的类别中(n = 8)的基因被升级,这表明将这些基因纳入HCP-MGPT的长期临床效用有限。我们的数据强调,对HCP的GDV评估需要强有力的证据,并且必须考虑到人群中不同的疾病外显率和患病率升高。平衡全面基因菜单的可用性和新基因临床应用的透明度将最大限度地识别高风险患者,同时减少因临床假阳性结果而误诊的风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Genome Medicine
Genome Medicine GENETICS & HEREDITY-
CiteScore
20.80
自引率
0.80%
发文量
128
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Genome Medicine is an open access journal that publishes outstanding research applying genetics, genomics, and multi-omics to understand, diagnose, and treat disease. Bridging basic science and clinical research, it covers areas such as cancer genomics, immuno-oncology, immunogenomics, infectious disease, microbiome, neurogenomics, systems medicine, clinical genomics, gene therapies, precision medicine, and clinical trials. The journal publishes original research, methods, software, and reviews to serve authors and promote broad interest and importance in the field.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信