Ignite Creation Date:
2025-12-24 @ 4:48 PM
Ignite Modification Date:
2026-04-05 @ 8:22 AM
Study NCT ID:
NCT04575350
Status:
COMPLETED
Last Update Posted:
2020-10-05
First Post:
2020-09-29
Is NOT Gene Therapy:
True
Has Adverse Events:
False
Brief Title:
Reinterpretation of CNV With Unknown Significance: a 5-year Retrospective Analysis
Sponsor:
Central Hospital, Nancy, France
Organization:
Study Overview
Official Title:
Intérêt de la réinterprétation Des CNV de Signification Inconnue Mis en évidence Par ACPA
Status:
COMPLETED
Status Verified Date:
2020-09
Last Known Status:
None
Delayed Posting:
No
If Stopped, Why?:
Not Stopped
Has Expanded Access:
False
If Expanded Access, NCT#:
N/A
Has Expanded Access, NCT# Status:
N/A
Acronym:
ReAC
Brief Summary:
We aim to assess the usefulness of systematic reinterpretation of CNV of unknown significance. To investigate this question we will study all CNV of unknown significance detected between 2010 and 2017.
Detailed Description:
Array-CGH is a front-line technique in many genetic indications in both prenatal and postnatal settings. It allows the detection of chromosomal rearrangements (duplication or deletion for example) in routine. The interpretation and classification of these copy number variations or CNVs is essential but complex. It requires a systematic and methodical analysis of the variation in the context of the scientific literature. When these revisions do not meet either pathogenicity or benignity criteria, they are referred to as variation of unknown significance (or VUS). They account for a significant proportion of the revisions up to 75% (Palmer et al., 2013).
The detection of VUS does not, in most cases, allow for a diagnosis and often requires the use of other, costly techniques. The human impact may also be significant in the absence of possible genetic counselling (e.g. in the context of a future pregnancy). Reanalysis of an VUS is of major interest for at least two reasons : (1) the first, if it is classified as benign, makes it possible to close the investigation of the variant, to consider other leads without ulterior motives, and to reassure the patient about the absence of pathogenicity of the variant. (2) if the VUS is ultimately pathogenic, this makes it possible to name the disease for the patient, to specify genetic counselling, to avoid further long and costly investigation and possibly to propose treatment.
Currently, VUS can be reanalysed by the laboratory at the request of the prescribing physician or possibly another physician. However, no systematic reanalysis procedure is currently in place.
Although these variations of unknown meanings are frequent and represent an important issue, to our knowledge, no systematic database study has been carried out. Some similar work has nevertheless been carried out over a shorter period or on an ad hoc basis, showing an interest in this type of approach (Palmer et al., 2014).
Indeed, it seems essential to determine the interest of reanalysing such variations in several modes: diagnostic, economic and human.
The detection of VUS does not, in most cases, allow for a diagnosis and often requires the use of other, costly techniques. The human impact may also be significant in the absence of possible genetic counselling (e.g. in the context of a future pregnancy). Reanalysis of an VUS is of major interest for at least two reasons : (1) the first, if it is classified as benign, makes it possible to close the investigation of the variant, to consider other leads without ulterior motives, and to reassure the patient about the absence of pathogenicity of the variant. (2) if the VUS is ultimately pathogenic, this makes it possible to name the disease for the patient, to specify genetic counselling, to avoid further long and costly investigation and possibly to propose treatment.
Currently, VUS can be reanalysed by the laboratory at the request of the prescribing physician or possibly another physician. However, no systematic reanalysis procedure is currently in place.
Although these variations of unknown meanings are frequent and represent an important issue, to our knowledge, no systematic database study has been carried out. Some similar work has nevertheless been carried out over a shorter period or on an ad hoc basis, showing an interest in this type of approach (Palmer et al., 2014).
Indeed, it seems essential to determine the interest of reanalysing such variations in several modes: diagnostic, economic and human.
Study Oversight
Has Oversight DMC:
False
Is a FDA Regulated Drug?:
False
Is a FDA Regulated Device?:
False
Is an Unapproved Device?:
None
Is a PPSD?:
None
Is a US Export?:
None
Is an FDA AA801 Violation?: