Comparison of the ABC and ACMG systems for variant classification

Gunnar Houge,Eirik Bratland,Ingvild Aukrust,Kristian Tveten,Gabrielė Žukauskaitė,Ivona Sansovic,Alejandro J. Brea-Fernández,Karin Mayer,Teija Paakkola,Caoimhe McKenna,William Wright,Milica Keckarevic Markovic,Dorte L. Lildballe,Michal Konecny,Thomas Smol,Pia Alhopuro,Estelle Arnaud Gouttenoire,Katharina Obeid,Albena Todorova,Milena Jankovic,Joanna M. Lubieniecka,Maja Stojiljkovic,Marie-Pierre Buisine,Bjørn Ivar Haukanes,Marie Lorans,Hanno Roomere,François M. Petit,Maria K. Haanpää,Claire Beneteau,Belén Pérez,Dijana Plaseska-Karanfilska,Matthias Rath,Nico Fuhrmann,Bibiana I. Ferreira,Coralea Stephanou,Wenche Sjursen,Aleš Maver,Cécile Rouzier,Adela Chirita-Emandi,João Gonçalves,Wei Cheng David Kuek,Martin Broly,Lonneke Haer-Wigman,Meow-Keong Thong,Sok-Kun Tae,Michaela Hyblova,Johan T. den Dunnen,Andreas Laner

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-024-01617-8

2024-05-23

European Journal of Human Genetics

Abstract:The ABC and ACMG variant classification systems were compared by asking mainly European clinical laboratories to classify variants in 10 challenging cases using both systems, and to state if the variant in question would be reported as a relevant result or not as a measure of clinical utility. In contrast to the ABC system, the ACMG system was not made to guide variant reporting but to determine the likelihood of pathogenicity. Nevertheless, this comparison is justified since the ACMG class determines variant reporting in many laboratories. Forty-three laboratories participated in the survey. In seven cases, the classification system used did not influence the reporting likelihood when variants labeled as "maybe report" after ACMG-based classification were included. In three cases of population frequent but disease-associated variants, there was a difference in favor of reporting after ABC classification. A possible reason is that ABC step C (standard variant comments) allows a variant to be reported in one clinical setting but not another, e.g., based on Bayesian-based likelihood calculation of clinical relevance. Finally, the selection of ACMG criteria was compared between 36 laboratories. When excluding criteria used by less than four laboratories (<10%), the average concordance rate was 46%. Taken together, ABC-based classification is more clear-cut than ACMG-based classification since molecular and clinical information is handled separately, and variant reporting can be adapted to the clinical question and phenotype. Furthermore, variants do not get a clinically inappropriate label, like pathogenic when not pathogenic in a clinical context, or variant of unknown significance when the significance is known.

genetics & heredity,biochemistry & molecular biology

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

The main problem that this paper attempts to solve is to compare and evaluate the effectiveness and clinical practicality of two genetic variation classification systems - the ACMG (American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics) system and the ABC system. Specifically, the study invited clinical laboratories in Europe and other regions to classify variations in 10 challenging cases, using these two systems, and determining whether these variations would be reported as relevant results, thereby measuring their clinical utility. The research focuses on:

1. **Classification Consistency**: Compare the consistency of selection using ACMG standards in different laboratories, and how this selection affects the classification and reporting of variations.
2. **Clinical Reporting Tendency**: Explore whether the use of different classification systems (ACMG vs. ABC) will affect the likelihood of laboratories reporting specific variations, especially in cases of some frequently occurring but disease - related variations in the population.
3. **System Adaptability**: Evaluate the usefulness of the standardized variation comments (Step C) of the ABC system in practical applications, and how it helps to adapt to different clinical problems and patient phenotypes.

The research results show that in most cases, the classification system used has little impact on the reporting likelihood, but in certain specific variation cases, the ABC system is more likely to report these variations. In addition, the ABC system is more clear and definite when dealing with molecular and clinical information, and can adjust the way of variation reporting according to clinical problems and phenotypes, thereby avoiding attaching inappropriate clinical labels to variations. This indicates that the ABC system may be more suitable for guiding variation reporting in some aspects, especially when it is necessary to flexibly adjust the reporting content according to clinical situations.