Samantha Baxter

The BRCA Challenge is a long-term data-sharing project initiated within the Global Alliance for Genomics and Health (GA4GH) to aggregate BRCA1 and BRCA2 data to support highly collaborative research activities. Its goal is to generate an informed and current understanding of the impact of genetic variation on cancer risk across the iconic cancer predisposition genes, BRCA1 and BRCA2. Initially, reported variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 available from public databases were integrated into a single, newly created site, www.brcaexchange.org. The purpose of the BRCA Exchange is to provide the community with a reliable and easily accessible record of variants interpreted for a high-penetrance phenotype. More than 20,000 variants have been aggregated, three times the number found in the next-largest public database at the project's outset, of which approximately 7,250 have expert classifications. The data set is based on shared information from existing clinical databases-Breast Cancer Information Core (BIC), ClinVar, and the Leiden Open Variation Database (LOVD)-as well as population databases, all linked to a single point of access. The BRCA Challenge has brought together the existing international Evidence-based Network for the Interpretation of Germline Mutant Alleles (ENIGMA) consortium expert panel, along with expert clinicians, diagnosticians, researchers, and database providers, all with a common goal of advancing our understanding of BRCA1 and BRCA2 variation. Ongoing work includes direct contact with national centers with access to BRCA1 and BRCA2 diagnostic data to encourage data sharing, development of methods suitable for extraction of genetic variation at the level of individual laboratory reports, and engagement with participant communities to enable a more comprehensive understanding of the clinical significance of genetic variation in BRCA1 and BRCA2.

BACKGROUND: Genetic variants that cause rare disorders may remain elusive even after expansive testing, such as exome sequencing. The diagnostic yield of genome sequencing, particularly after a negative evaluation, remains poorly defined. METHODS: We sequenced and analyzed the genomes of families with diverse phenotypes who were suspected to have a rare monogenic disease and for whom genetic testing had not revealed a diagnosis, as well as the genomes of a replication cohort at an independent clinical center. RESULTS: We sequenced the genomes of 822 families (744 in the initial cohort and 78 in the replication cohort) and made a molecular diagnosis in 218 of 744 families (29.3%). Of the 218 families, 61 (28.0%) - 8.2% of families in the initial cohort - had variants that required genome sequencing for identification, including coding variants, intronic variants, small structural variants, copy-neutral inversions, complex rearrangements, and tandem repeat expansions. Most families in which a molecular diagnosis was made after previous nondiagnostic exome sequencing (63.5%) had variants that could be detected by reanalysis of the exome-sequence data (53.4%) or by additional analytic methods, such as copy-number variant calling, to exome-sequence data (10.8%). We obtained similar results in the replication cohort: in 33% of the families in which a molecular diagnosis was made, or 8% of the cohort, genome sequencing was required, which showed the applicability of these findings to both research and clinical environments. CONCLUSIONS: The diagnostic yield of genome sequencing in a large, diverse research cohort and in a small clinical cohort of persons who had previously undergone genetic testing was approximately 8% and included several types of pathogenic variation that had not previously been detected by means of exome sequencing or other techniques. (Funded by the National Human Genome Research Institute and others.).