Search PubMedSearch

PubMed · 42528494

'Truthsets' for clinical validation of large-scale functional assays: Practice recommendations from Cancer Variant Interpretation Group UK (CanVIG-UK).

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Large-scale functional assays, including multiplex assays of variant effect, have substantial potential to resolve variants of uncertain significance (VUS), particularly for rare missense variants where clinical and population evidence are limited. The ClinGen assay-level clinical validation framework described by Brnich et al provided baseline guidance for the use of functional data for variant classification. However, clear consensus regarding construction of variant 'truthsets' by which to clinically validate functional data remains lacking. METHODS: CanVIG-UK developed consensus recommendations for truthset construction through an iterative national consultation process involving the CanVIG Steering Advisory Group (CStAG), wider CanVIG-UK membership, and engagement with international functional genomics experts. Consultation was based on previous analyses of 2,120 truthset constructions examining the impact of truthset composition on evidence point allocation within the ClinGen assay-level clinical validation framework. RESULTS: Across several consultations, CanVIG-UK established nine guiding principles and seven best-practice recommendations for assay-level clinical validation, using the assumed context of an assay for a cancer susceptibility gene where loss-of-function is the mechanism of pathogenicity. The principal recommendation stipulates, where assays are intended for use in interpretation of largely missense variants, the truthset used to validate should comprise only missense variants. Rather than mixtures of different variant types which may serve to over-estimate assay performance. Additional recommendations support option for relaxation of truthset stringency to improve power, augmentation of benign missense truthsets with systematically derived 'proxy-clinical' benign variants, independent clinical validation separate from assayist-defined validation, and careful evaluation of missense score distributions against that of protein-truncating and synonymous variants. Guidance is also provided for scenarios with limited pathogenic truthset availability and for assays reporting multiple deleterious zones or readouts. CONCLUSIONS: The CanVIG-UK principles and recommendations for truthset construction upon the ClinGen assay-level clinical validation framework, while aiming to form a baseline for future discussion regarding other functional and disease contexts and helping to address the gap between publication of new data and routine clinical implementation.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Sophie Allen, Charlie F Rowlands, Alice Garrett, Zeid Kuzbari, Miranda Durkie, George J Burghel, Rachel Robinson, Alison Callaway, Joanne Field, Bethan Frugtniet, Sheila Palmer-Smith, Jonathan Grant, Judith Pagan, Elizabeth Johnston, Trudi McDevitt, Lowri Hughes, Laura Yarram-Smith, Peter Logan, Laura Reed, Katie Snape, Terri McVeigh, Helen Hanson, Rehan Villani, Amanda B Spurdle, Lea M Starita, Douglas M Fowler, Frederick P Roth, Elizabeth Radford, David J Adams, Gregory M Findlay, Clare Turnbull, CanVIG-UK. 2026-07-13. 'Truthsets' for clinical validation of large-scale functional assays: Practice recommendations from Cancer Variant Interpretation Group UK (CanVIG-UK).. https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.07.10.26357770

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines against hospitalisation according to frailty risk: a prespecified analysis of the randomised trial DANFLU-2.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a major risk factor for influenza-related complications and can influence vaccine effectiveness. We aimed to assess the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of high-dose (HD-IIV) versus standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV) in older adults aged 65 years or older according to frailty risk. METHODS: This study was a prespecified analysis of DANFLU-2, an open-label, individually randomised trial, conducted in Denmark during three consecutive influenza seasons (2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25). Adults aged 65 years or older were randomised (1:1) to the HD-IIV or SD-IIV group. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia. Frailty was defined according to the validated Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) based on ICD-10 codes within 10 years before randomisation. Participants were stratified into three HFRS categories, namely low (<5 points), intermediate (5-15 points), and high (>15 points) frailty risk. The rVE of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint was assessed across prespecified HFRS categories and treating HFRS as a continuous variable. Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare safety events across frailty risk groups and randomisation groups. FINDINGS: Among 332&#x2009;438 randomised participants (mean age 73&#xb7;7 years [SD 5&#xb7;8]; 161&#x2009;538 [48&#xb7;6%] were female), 276&#x2009;173 (83&#xb7;1%) had low frailty risk, 52&#x2009;395 (15&#xb7;8%) had intermediate frailty risk, and 3861 (1&#xb7;2%) had high frailty risk. The primary endpoint of hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia occurred in 1424 (0&#xb7;5%) of 276&#x2009;173 participants with low frailty risk, 761 (1&#xb7;5%) of 52&#x2009;395 with intermediate frailty risk, and 163 (4&#xb7;2%) of 3861 with high frailty risk (relative risk [RR] for intermediate vs low frailty risk 2&#xb7;8 [95% CI 2&#xb7;6-3&#xb7;1]; RR for high vs low frailty risk 8&#xb7;2 [7&#xb7;0-9&#xb7;6]). HFRS as a continuous variable significantly modified the effect of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint with higher rVE estimates with increasing HFRS (pinteraction=0&#xb7;020). The rVE was 0&#xb7;2% (95% CI -10&#xb7;8 to 10&#xb7;2) among those with low frailty risk, 13&#xb7;1% (-0&#xb7;4 to 24&#xb7;8) among those with intermediate frailty risk, and 19&#xb7;9% (-10&#xb7;3 to 42&#xb7;1) among those with high frailty risk. No significant interaction was observed when HFRS was assessed according to the prespecified categorical frailty groups (pinteraction=0&#xb7;17). The proportion of participants with at least one serious adverse event increased across frailty risk groups (13&#x2009;366 [4&#xb7;8%] of 275&#x2009;795 for low frailty risk, 5475 [10&#xb7;5%] of 52&#x2009;315 for intermediate frailty risk, and 777 [20&#xb7;2%] of 3850 for high frailty risk; p<0&#xb7;0001), with similar proportions of serious adverse events in the HD-IIV and SD-IIV groups for each frailty risk group. INTERPRETATION: Among adults aged 65 years or older in Denmark, frailty risk might modify the effects of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia, with higher rVE estimates with increasing frailty risk. These findings might support considering high-dose influenza vaccines for frail older adults. However, effect modification was not evident when frailty was assessed using prespecified categorical subgroups, and subgroup-specific estimates were imprecise, with 95% CIs crossing the null. These results should be considered exploratory, warranting further investigation. FUNDING: The DANFLU-2 trial was funded by Sanofi.

Journal Article