CIViCdb 2022: evolution of an open-access cancer variant interpretation knowledgebase

CIViC (Clinical Interpretation of Variants in Cancer; civicdb.org) is a crowd-sourced, public domain knowledgebase composed of literature-derived evidence characterizing the clinical utility of cancer variants. As clinical sequencing becomes more prevalent in cancer management, the need for cancer variant interpretation has grown beyond the capability of any single institution. CIViC contains peer-reviewed, published literature curated and expertly-moderated into structured data units (Evidence Items) that can be accessed globally and in real time, reducing barriers to clinical variant knowledge sharing. We have extended CIViC’s functionality to support emergent variant interpretation guidelines, increase interoperability with other variant resources, and promote widespread dissemination of structured curated data. To support the full breadth of variant interpretation from basic to translational, including integration of somatic and germline variant knowledge and inference of drug response, we have enabled curation of three new Evidence Types (Predisposing, Oncogenic and Functional). The growing CIViC knowledgebase has over 300 contributors and distributes clinically-relevant cancer variant data currently representing >3200 variants in >470 genes from >3100 publications

GeneTerpret: a customizable multilayer approach to genomic variant prioritization and interpretation

Abstract Background Variant interpretation is the main bottleneck in medical genomic sequencing efforts. This usually involves genome analysts manually searching through a multitude of independent databases, often with the aid of several, mostly independent, computational tools. To streamline variant interpretation, we developed the GeneTerpret platform which collates data from current interpretation tools and databases, and applies a phenotype-driven query to categorize the variants identified in the genome(s). The platform assigns quantitative validity scores to genes by query and assembly of the genotype–phenotype data, sequence homology, molecular interactions, expression data, and animal models. It also uses the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) criteria to categorize variants into five tiers of pathogenicity. The final output is a prioritized list of potentially causal variants/genes. Results We tested GeneTerpret by comparing its performance to expert-curated genes (ClinGen’s gene-validity database) and variant pathogenicity reports (DECIPHER database). Output from GeneTerpret was 97.2% and 83.5% concordant with the expert-curated sources, respectively. Additionally, similar concordance was observed when GeneTerpret’s performance was compared with our internal expert-interpreted clinical datasets. Conclusions GeneTerpret is a flexible platform designed to streamline the genome interpretation process, through a unique interface, with improved ease, speed and accuracy. This modular and customizable system allows the user to tailor the component-programs in the analysis process to their preference. GeneTerpret is available online at https://geneterpret.com

Health-status outcomes with invasive or conservative care in coronary disease

BACKGROUND In the ISCHEMIA trial, an invasive strategy with angiographic assessment and revascularization did not reduce clinical events among patients with stable ischemic heart disease and moderate or severe ischemia. A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status among these patients. METHODS We assessed angina-related symptoms, function, and quality of life with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) at randomization, at months 1.5, 3, and 6, and every 6 months thereafter in participants who had been randomly assigned to an invasive treatment strategy (2295 participants) or a conservative strategy (2322). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate differences between the treatment groups. The primary outcome of this health-status analysis was the SAQ summary score (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status). All analyses were performed in the overall population and according to baseline angina frequency. RESULTS At baseline, 35% of patients reported having no angina in the previous month. SAQ summary scores increased in both treatment groups, with increases at 3, 12, and 36 months that were 4.1 points (95% credible interval, 3.2 to 5.0), 4.2 points (95% credible interval, 3.3 to 5.1), and 2.9 points (95% credible interval, 2.2 to 3.7) higher with the invasive strategy than with the conservative strategy. Differences were larger among participants who had more frequent angina at baseline (8.5 vs. 0.1 points at 3 months and 5.3 vs. 1.2 points at 36 months among participants with daily or weekly angina as compared with no angina). CONCLUSIONS In the overall trial population with moderate or severe ischemia, which included 35% of participants without angina at baseline, patients randomly assigned to the invasive strategy had greater improvement in angina-related health status than those assigned to the conservative strategy. The modest mean differences favoring the invasive strategy in the overall group reflected minimal differences among asymptomatic patients and larger differences among patients who had had angina at baseline

Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease

BACKGROUND Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain. METHODS We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction. RESULTS Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, 121.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 124.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used