Background: The BRCA1-associated protein-1 (BAP1) tumor predisposition syndrome (BAP1-TPDS) is a hereditary tumor syndrome caused by germline pathogenic variants in BAP1 encoding a tumor suppressor associated with uveal melanoma, mesothelioma, cutaneous melanoma, renal cell carcinoma, and cutaneous BAP1-inactivated melanocytic tumors. However, the full spectrum of tumors associated with the syndrome is yet to be determined. Improved understanding of the BAP1-TPDS is crucial for appropriate clinical management of BAP1 germline variant carriers and their families, including genetic counseling and surveillance for new tumors. Methods: We collated germline variant status, tumor diagnoses, and information on BAP1 immunohistochemistry or loss of somatic heterozygosity on 106 published and 75 unpublished BAP1 germline variant-positive families worldwide to better characterize the genotypes and phenotypes associated with the BAP1-TPDS. Tumor spectrum and ages of onset were compared between missense and null variants. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: The 181 families carried 140 unique BAP1 germline variants. The collated data confirmed the core tumor spectrum associated with the BAP1-TPDS and showed that some families carrying missense variants can exhibit this phenotype. A variety of noncore BAP1-TPDS -associated tumors were found in families of variant carriers. Median ages of onset of core tumor types were lower in null than missense variant carriers for all tumors combined (P < .001), mesothelioma (P < .001), cutaneous melanoma (P < .001), and nonmelanoma skin cancer (P < .001).

Widely available and easily accessible testing for COVID-19 is a cornerstone of pandemic containment strategies. Nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) are the currently accepted standard for sample collection but are limited by their need for collection devices and sampling by trained healthcare professionals. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of saliva to NPS in an outpatient setting. This was a prospective study conducted at three centers, which compared the performance of saliva and NPS samples collected at the time of assessment center visit. Samples were tested by real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction and sensitivity and overall agreement determined between saliva and NPS. Clinical data was abstracted by chart review for select study participants. Of the 432 paired samples, 46 were positive for SARS-CoV-2, with seven discordant observed between the two sample types (four individuals testing positive only by NPS and three by saliva only). The observed agreement was 98.4% (kappa coefficient 0.91) and a composite reference standard demonstrated sensitivity of 0.91 and 0.93 for saliva and NPS samples, respectively. On average, the Ct values obtained from saliva as compared to NPS were higher by 2.76. This study demonstrates that saliva performs comparably to NPS for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. Saliva was simple to collect, did not require transport media, and could be tested with equipment readily available at most laboratories. The use of saliva as an acceptable alternative to NPS could support the use of widespread surveillance testing for SARS-CoV-2.

Background: Widespread testing for severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is necessary to curb the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but testing is undermined when the only option is a nasopharyngeal swab. Self-collected swab techniques can overcome many of the disadvantages of a nasopharyngeal swab, but they require evaluation. Methods: Three self-collected non-nasopharyngeal swab techniques (saline gargle, oral swab and combined oral-anterior nasal swab) were compared to a nasopharyngeal swab for SARS-CoV-2 detection at multiple COVID-19 assessment centers in Toronto, Canada. The performance characteristics of each test were assessed. Results: The adjusted sensitivity of the saline gargle was 0.90 (95% CI 0.86-0.94), the oral swab was 0.82 (95% CI, 0.72–0.89) and the combined oral–anterior nasal swab was 0.87 (95% CI, 0.77–0.93) compared to a nasopharyngeal swab, which demonstrated a sensitivity of ˜90% when all positive tests were the reference standard. The median cycle threshold values for the SARS-CoV-2 E-gene for concordant and discordant saline gargle specimens were 17 and 31 (P < .001), for the oral swabs these values were 17 and 28 (P < .001), and for oral–anterior nasal swabs these values were 18 and 31 (P = .007). Conclusions: Self-collected saline gargle and an oral–anterior nasal swab have a similar sensitivity to a nasopharyngeal swab for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. These alternative collection techniques are cheap and can eliminate barriers to testing, particularly in underserved populations.