Limited Independent Follow-Up with Germline Testing of Variants Detected in BRCA1 and BRCA2 by Tumor-Only Sequencing.

Introduction: Genomic profiling is performed in patients with advanced or metastatic cancer, in order to direct cancer treatment, often sequencing tumor-only, without a matched germline comparator. However, because many of the genes analyzed on tumor profiling overlap with those known to be associated with hereditary cancer predisposition syndromes (HCPS), tumor-only profiling can unknowingly uncover germline pathogenic (P) and likely pathogenic variants (LPV). In this study, we evaluated the number of patients with P/LPVs identified in BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) via tumor-only profiling, then determined the germline testing outcomes for those patients. Methods: A retrospective chart review was performed to identify patients with BRCA1/2 variants on tumor-only genomic profiling, and whether they had germline testing. Results: This study found that of 2923 patients with 36 tumor types who underwent tumor-only testing, 554 had a variant in BRCA1/2 (19.0%); 119 of the 554 patients (21.5%) had a P/LP BRCA1/2 variant, representing 4.1% of the overall population who underwent genomic profiling. Seventy-three (61.3%) of 119 patients with BRCA1/2 P/LPV on tumor-only testing did not undergo germline testing, 34 (28.6%) had already had germline testing before tumor-only testing, and 12 (10.1%) underwent germline testing after tumor-only testing. Twenty-eight germline BRCA1/2 P/LPVs were detected, 24 in those who had prior germline testing, and 4 among the 12 patients who had germline testing after tumor-only testing. Conclusion: Tumor-only testing is likely to identify P/LPVs in BRCA1/2. Efforts to improve follow-up germline testing is needed to improve identification of germline BRCA1/2 alterations.

Correction: A feasibility study of returning clinically actionable somatic genomic alterations identified in a research laboratory.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.16018.].

A feasibility study of returning clinically actionable somatic genomic alterations identified in a research laboratory.

PURPOSE: Molecular profiling performed in the research setting usually does not benefit the patients that donate their tissues. Through a prospective protocol, we sought to determine the feasibility and utility of performing broad genomic testing in the research laboratory for discovery, and the utility of giving treating physicians access to research data, with the option of validating actionable alterations in the CLIA environment. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: 1200 patients with advanced cancer underwent characterization of their tumors with high depth hybrid capture sequencing of 201 genes in the research setting. Tumors were also tested in the CLIA laboratory, with a standardized hotspot mutation analysis on an 11, 46 or 50 gene platform. RESULTS: 527 patients (44%) had at least one likely somatic mutation detected in an actionable gene using hotspot testing. With the 201 gene panel, 945 patients (79%) had at least one alteration in a potentially actionable gene that was undetected with the more limited CLIA panel testing. Sixty-four genomic alterations identified on the research panel were subsequently tested using an orthogonal CLIA assay. Of 16 mutations tested in the CLIA environment, 12 (75%) were confirmed. Twenty-five (52%) of 48 copy number alterations were confirmed. Nine (26.5%) of 34 patients with confirmed results received genotype-matched therapy. Seven of these patients were enrolled onto genotype-matched targeted therapy trials. CONCLUSION: Expanded cancer gene sequencing identifies more actionable genomic alterations. The option of CLIA validating research results can provide alternative targets for personalized cancer therapy.

Feasibility of Large-Scale Genomic Testing to Facilitate Enrollment Onto Genomically Matched Clinical Trials.

PURPOSE: We report the experience with 2,000 consecutive patients with advanced cancer who underwent testing on a genomic testing protocol, including the frequency of actionable alterations across tumor types, subsequent enrollment onto clinical trials, and the challenges for trial enrollment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Standardized hotspot mutation analysis was performed in 2,000 patients, using either an 11-gene (251 patients) or a 46- or 50-gene (1,749 patients) multiplex platform. Thirty-five genes were considered potentially actionable based on their potential to be targeted with approved or investigational therapies. RESULTS: Seven hundred eighty-nine patients (39%) had at least one mutation in potentially actionable genes. Eighty-three patients (11%) with potentially actionable mutations went on genotype-matched trials targeting these alterations. Of 230 patients with PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN/BRAF mutations that returned for therapy, 116 (50%) received a genotype-matched drug. Forty patients (17%) were treated on a genotype-selected trial requiring a mutation for eligibility, 16 (7%) were treated on a genotype-relevant trial targeting a genomic alteration without biomarker selection, and 40 (17%) received a genotype-relevant drug off trial. Challenges to trial accrual included patient preference of noninvestigational treatment or local treatment, poor performance status or other reasons for trial ineligibility, lack of trials/slots, and insurance denial. CONCLUSION: Broad implementation of multiplex hotspot testing is feasible; however, only a small portion of patients with actionable alterations were actually enrolled onto genotype-matched trials. Increased awareness of therapeutic implications and access to novel therapeutics are needed to optimally leverage results from broad-based genomic testing.

Clinical next generation sequencing to identify actionable aberrations in a phase I program.

PURPOSE: We determined the frequency of recurrent hotspot mutations in 46 cancer-related genes across tumor histologies in patients with advanced cancer. METHODS: We reviewed data from 500 consecutive patients who underwent genomic profiling on an IRB-approved prospective clinical protocol in the Phase I program at the MD Anderson Cancer Center. Archival tumor DNA was tested for 740 hotspot mutations in 46 genes (Ampli-Seq Cancer Panel; Life Technologies, CA). RESULTS: Of the 500 patients, 362 had at least one reported mutation/variant. The most common likely somatic mutations were within TP53 (36%), KRAS (11%), and PIK3CA (9%) genes. Sarcoma (20%) and kidney (30%) had the lowest proportion of likely somatic mutations detected, while pancreas (100%), colorectal (89%), melanoma (86%), and endometrial (75%) had the highest. There was high concordance in 62 patients with paired primary tumors and metastases analyzed. 151 (30%) patients had alterations in potentially actionable genes. 37 tumor types were enrolled; both rare actionable mutations in common tumor types and actionable mutations in rare tumor types were identified. CONCLUSION: Multiplex testing in the CLIA environment facilitates genomic characterization across multiple tumor lineages and identification of novel opportunities for genotype-driven trials.