Copy number variant discrepancy resolution using the ClinGen dosage sensitivity map results in updated clinical interpretations in ClinVar

Conflict resolution in genomic variant interpretation is a critical step toward improving patient care. Evaluating interpretation discrepancies in copy number variants (CNVs) typically involves assessing overlapping genomic content with focus on genes/regions that may be subject to dosage sensitivity (haploinsufficiency (HI) and/or triplosensitivity (TS)). CNVs containing dosage sensitive genes/regions are generally interpreted as â likely pathogenicâ (LP) or â pathogenicâ (P), and CNVs involving the same known dosage sensitive gene(s) should receive the same clinical interpretation. We compared the Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) Dosage Map, a publicly available resource documenting known HI and TS genes/regions, against germline, clinical CNV interpretations within the ClinVar database. We identified 251 CNVs overlapping known dosage sensitive genes/regions but not classified as LP or P; these were sent back to their original submitting laboratories for reâ evaluation. Of 246 CNVs reâ evaluated, an updated clinical classification was warranted in 157 cases (63.8%); no change was made to the current classification in 79 cases (32.1%); and 10 cases (4.1%) resulted in other types of updates to ClinVar records. This effort will add curated interpretation data into the public domain and allow laboratories to focus attention on more complex discrepancies.The ClinGen Dosage Sensitivity (DS) Map provides evidenceâ based assessments of the haploinsufficiency and triplosensitivity of genes/genomic regions. We identified 251 clinical copy number variants (CNVs) in ClinVar that overlapped known DS genes/regions but were not interpreted as â likely pathogenicâ or â pathogenic;â these were sent back to their original laboratories for reâ evaluation. Of the 246 that were reâ evaluated, 63.0% resulted in updated classifications, showing that the ClinGen DS Map can be an effective initial step in CNV classification discrepancy resolution.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/146425/1/humu23610_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/146425/2/humu23610.pd

Segmental duplications mediate novel, clinically relevant chromosome rearrangements

Copy number studies have led to an explosion in the discovery of new segmental duplication-mediated deletions and duplications. We have analyzed copy number changes in 2419 patients referred for clinical array comparative genomic hybridization studies. Twenty-three percent of the abnormal copy number changes we found are immediately flanked by segmental duplications ≥10 kb in size and ≥95% identical in direct orientation, consistent with deletions and duplications generated by non-allelic homologous recombination. Here, we describe copy number changes in five previously unreported loci with genomic organization characteristic of NAHR-mediated gains and losses; namely, 2q11.2, 7q36.1, 17q23, 2q13 and 7q11.21. Deletions and duplications of 2q11.2, deletions of 7q36.1 and deletions of 17q23 are interpreted as pathogenic based on their genomic size, gene content, de novo inheritance and absence from control populations. The clinical significance of 2q13 deletions and duplications is still emerging, as these imbalances are also found in phenotypically normal family members and control individuals. Deletion of 7q11.21 is a benign copy number change well represented in control populations and copy number variation databases. Here, we discuss the genetic factors that can modify the phenotypic expression of such gains and losses, which likely play a role in these and other recurrent genomic disorders

An evidence-based approach to establish the functional and clinical significance of copy number variants in intellectual and developmental disabilities

Purpose: Copy number variants have emerged as a major cause of human disease such as autism and intellectual disabilities. Because copy number variants are common in normal individuals, determining the functional and clinical significance of rare copy number variants in patients remains challenging. The adoption of whole-genome chromosomal microarray analysis as a first-tier diagnostic test for individuals with unexplained developmental disabilities provides a unique opportunity to obtain large copy number variant datasets generated through routine patient care.Methods: A consortium of diagnostic laboratories was established (the International Standards for Cytogenomic Arrays consortium) to share copy number variant and phenotypic data in a central, public database. We present the largest copy number variant case-control study to date comprising 15,749 International Standards for Cytogenomic Arrays cases and 10,118 published controls, focusing our initial analysis on recurrent deletions and duplications involving 14 copy number variant regions.Results: Compared with controls, 14 deletions and seven duplications were significantly overrepresented in cases, providing a clinical diagnosis as pathogenic.Conclusion: Given the rapid expansion of clinical chromosomal microarray analysis testing, very large datasets will be available to determine the functional significance of increasingly rare copy number variants. This data will provide an evidence-based guide to clinicians across many disciplines involved in the diagnosis, management, and care of these patients and their families.<br/

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