Search

Abstract Background In 2015, the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) and the Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP) developed standardized variant curation guidelines for Mendelian disorders. Although these guidelines have been widely adopted, they are not gene- or disease-specific. To mitigate classification discrepancies, the Clinical Genome Resource FBN1 variant curation expert panel (VCEP) was established in 2018 to develop adaptations to the ACMG/AMP criteria for FBN1 in association with Marfan syndrome. Methods The specific recommendations were developed through literature review, surveys, online expert panel discussions, and pilot testing of a set of 60 different variants. Consensus among experts was considered reached if at least 75% of the members agreed with a given rule specification. The final set of rules received approval from the ClinGen Sequence Variant Interpretation Working Group. Results The developed specifications introduce modifications to 14 of the 28 ACMG/AMP evidence criteria and deem 6 criteria non-applicable. Some of these specifications include refining the minor allele frequency thresholds, creating a FBN1-specific flowchart for PVS1, defining functional domains of the protein, developing a point-based system of counting probands and instances of de novo occurrences, recommending a points-based method of accounting for family segregation data, and clarifying the applicable functional assays that should be considered. To date, this VCEP has curated 120 variants which have been deposited to ClinVar with the 3-star review status. Conclusions Establishing specific adaptations for FBN1 has provided a framework to foster greater classification concordance among clinical laboratories, ultimately improving clinical care for patients with Marfan syndrome.

Abstract Objectives To inform the design of a clinical trial of a targeted screening programme for relatives of individuals affected by thoracic aortic disease, we performed a consensus exercise as to the acceptability of screening, the optimal sequence and choice of tests, long-term patient management, and choice of trial design. Methods Working with the Aortic Dissection Awareness UK & Ireland patient association, we performed a Delphi exercise with clinical experts, patients, and carers, consisting of three rounds of consultation followed by a final multi-stakeholder face-to-face workshop. Results Thirty-five experts and 84 members of the public took part in the surveys, with 164 patients and clinicians attending the final workshop. There was substantial agreement on the need for a targeted screening pathway that would employ a combined approach (imaging + genetic testing). The target population would include the first- and second-degree adult (> 15 years) relatives, with no upper age limit of affected patients. Disagreement persisted about the screening process, sequence, personnel, the imaging method to adopt, computed tomography (CT) scan vs magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and the specifics of a potential trial, including willingness to undergo randomisation, and measures of effectiveness and acceptability. Conclusion A Delphi process, initiated by patients, identified areas of uncertainty with respect to behaviour, process, and the design of a targeted screening programme for thoracic aortic disease that requires further research prior to any future trial.