ACMG previously developed recommendations for standards for interpretation of sequence variations. We now present the updated revised recommendations. Here, we describe six interpretative categories of sequence variations: (1) sequence variation is previously reported and is a recognized cause of the disorder; (2) sequence variation is previously unreported and is of the type which is expected to cause the disorder; (3) sequence variation is previously unreported and is of the type which may or may not be causative of the disorder; (4) sequence variation is previously unreported and is probably not causative of disease; (5) sequence variation is previously reported and is a recognized neutral variant; and (6) sequence variation is previously not known or expected to be causative of disease, but is found to be associated with a clinical presentation. We emphasize the importance of appropriate reporting of sequence variations using standardized terminology and established databases, and of clearly reporting the limitations of sequence-based testing. We discuss follow-up studies that may be used to ascertain the clinical significance of sequence variations, including the use of additional tools (such as predictive software programs) that may be useful in variant classification. As more information becomes available allowing the interpretation of a new sequence variant, it is recommended that the laboratory amend previous reports and provide updated results to the physician. The ACMG strongly recommends that the clinical and technical validation of sequence variation detection be performed in a CLIA-approved laboratory and interpreted by a board-certified clinical molecular geneticist or equivalent. Genet Med 2008:10(4):294-300.These recommendations for the standardization of interpretation and reporting of sequence variations identified in the course of providing clinical laboratory services are intended (1) to provide a framework for laboratories for the interpretation and reporting of such test results, and (2) to aid referring clinicians by educating them as to possible testing outcomes so that they may inform their patients and families appropriately. These revised recommendations are based on the foundation laid by the previous ACMG practice guideline recommendations in 2000. 1 I. INTERPRETATIVE CATEGORIES AND DEFINITIONS OF SEQUENCE VARIATIONSIncreasingly, clinical molecular laboratories are detecting novel sequence variations in the course of testing patient spec-

Specific features of personal and family history can be used to assess the likelihood of identifying a mutation in BRCA1 or BRCA2 in individuals tested in a clinical setting.

BACKGROUND:In women at increased risk for breast and ovarian cancer, the identification of a mutation in breast cancer gene 1 (BRCA1) and BRCA2 has important implications for screening and prevention counseling. Uncertainty regarding the role of BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing in high‐risk women from diverse ancestral backgrounds exists because of variability in prevalence estimates of deleterious (disease‐associated) mutations in non‐white populations. In this study, the authors examined the prevalence of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in an ethnically diverse group of women who were referred for genetic testing.METHODS:In this cross‐sectional analysis, the prevalence of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations was assessed in a group of non‐Ashkenazi Jewish women who underwent genetic testing.RESULTS:From 1996 to 2006, 46,276 women who met study criteria underwent DNA full‐sequence analysis of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. Deleterious mutations were identified in 12.5% of women, and recurrent deleterious mutations (prevalence >2%) were identified in all ancestral groups. Women of non‐European descent were younger (mean age, 45.9 years; standard deviation [SD], 11.6 years) than European women (mean age, 50 years; SD, 11.9 years; P < .001). Women of African (15.6%; odds ratio [OR], 1.3 [95% confidence interval (95% CI), 1.1‐1.5]) and Latin American (14.8%; OR, 1.2 [95% CI, 1.1‐1.4]) ancestries had a significantly higher prevalence of deleterious BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations compared with women of Western European ancestry (12.1%), primarily because of an increased prevalence of BRCA1 mutations in those 2 groups. Non‐European ethnicity was associated strongly with having a variant of uncertain significance; however, reclassification decreased variant reporting (from 12.8%→5.9%), and women of African ancestry experienced the largest decline (58%).CONCLUSIONS:Mutation prevalence was found to be high among women who were referred for clinical BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing, and the risk was similar across diverse ethnicities. BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing is integral to cancer risk assessment in all high‐risk women. Cancer 2009. © 2009 American Cancer Society.

Specific features of personal and family history can be used to assess the likelihood of identifying a mutation in BRCA1 or BRCA2 in individuals tested in a clinical setting.

SummaryDetection of chromosome aneuploidies in uncultured amniocytes is possible using fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH

Personal and family history characteristics can accurately predict the outcome of genetic testing in a large population at risk of Lynch syndrome. The PREMM(1,2) model provides clinicians with an objective, easy-to-use tool to estimate the likelihood of finding mutations in the MLH1/MSH2 genes and may guide the strategy for molecular evaluation.

It appears that early IBTR is a significant predictor for distant metastases. Whether early breast tumor relapse is a marker for or cause of distant metastases remains a controversial and unresolved issue. Implications for adjuvant systemic therapy at the time of breast relapse are discussed.

A tactical approach: C3‐chiral ancillary ligands such as tris(oxazolinyl)ethane allow stereocontrol in olefin polymerization (see scheme). An alkyl ScIII catalyst polymerizes 1‐hexene with activities ranging from 2000 to 36 000 kg mol−1 h−1 (at −30 to +21 °C) and good tacticity control at low temperatures.