Combining germline, tissue and liquid biopsy analysis by comprehensive genomic profiling to improve the yield of actionable variants in a real-world cancer cohort.

BACKGROUND: Comprehensive next-generation sequencing is widely used for precision oncology and precision prevention approaches. We aimed to determine the yield of actionable gene variants, the capacity to uncover hereditary predisposition and liquid biopsy appropriateness instead of, or in addition to, tumor tissue analysis, in a real-world cohort of cancer patients, who may benefit the most from comprehensive genomic profiling. METHODS: Seventy-eight matched germline/tumor tissue/liquid biopsy DNA and RNA samples were profiled using the Hereditary Cancer Panel (germline) and the TruSight Oncology 500 panel (tumor tissue/cfDNA) from 23 patients consecutively enrolled at our center according to at least one of the following criteria: no available therapeutic options; long responding patients potentially fit for other therapies; rare tumor; suspected hereditary cancer; primary cancer with high metastatic potential; tumor of unknown primary origin. Variants were annotated for OncoKB and AMP/ASCO/CAP classification. RESULTS: The overall yield of actionable somatic and germline variants was 57% (13/23 patients), and 43.5%, excluding variants previously identified by somatic or germline routine testing. The accuracy of tumor/cfDNA germline-focused analysis was demonstrated by overlapping results of germline testing. Five germline variants in BRCA1, VHL, CHEK1, ATM genes would have been missed without extended genomic profiling. A previously undetected BRAF p.V600E mutation was emblematic of the clinical utility of this approach in a patient with a liver undifferentiated embryonal sarcoma responsive to BRAF/MEK inhibition. CONCLUSIONS: Our study confirms the clinical relevance of performing extended parallel tumor DNA and cfDNA testing to broaden therapeutic options, to longitudinally monitor cfDNA during patient treatment, and to uncover possible hereditary predisposition following tumor sequencing in patient care.

Predictors of germline status for hereditary melanoma: 5 years of multi-gene panel testing within the Italian Melanoma Intergroup.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of cutaneous melanoma is increasing in Italy, in parallel with the implementation of gene panels. Therefore, a revision of national genetic assessment criteria for hereditary melanoma may be needed. The aim of this study was to identify predictors of susceptibility variants in the largest prospective cohort of Italian high-risk melanoma cases studied to date. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From 25 Italian centers, we recruited 1044 family members and germline sequenced 940 cutaneous melanoma index cases through a shared gene panel, which included the following genes: CDKN2A, CDK4, BAP1, POT1, ACD, TERF2IP, MITF and ATM. We assessed detection rate according to familial status, region of origin, number of melanomas and presence and type of non-melanoma tumors. RESULTS: The overall detection rate was 9.47% (5.53% analyzing CDKN2A alone), ranging from 5.14% in sporadic multiple melanoma cases (spoMPM) with two cutaneous melanomas to 13.9% in familial cases with at least three affected members. Three or more cutaneous melanomas in spoMPM cases, pancreatic cancer and region of origin predicted germline status [odds ratio (OR) = 3.23, 3.15, 2.43, P < 0.05]. Conversely, age > 60 years was a negative independent predictor (OR = 0.13, P = 0.008), and was the age category with the lowest detection rate, especially for CDKN2A. Detection rate was 19% when cutaneous melanoma and pancreatic cancer clustered together. CONCLUSIONS: Gene panel doubled the detection rate given by CDKN2A alone. National genetic testing criteria may need a revision, especially regarding age cut-off (60) in the absence of strong family history, pancreatic cancer and/or a high number of cutaneous melanomas.

[In vitro fertilization in France: economic aspects and influence of the gonadotropin choice (urinary vs. recombinant) on cost]. / La fécondation in vitro en France. Approche économique et influence du choix des gonadotrophines (urinaires ou recombinantes) sur le coût.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of the study was to make an economic evaluation of in vitro fertilization and to determine the impact of some factors on its cost, particularly the choice between recombinant follicle stimulating hormone (r-FSH) and urinary FSH (u-FSH) for ovarian stimulation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Costs were calculated in a Public Health view, by studying two phases: the stimulation cycle (including down-regulation) and the pregnancy (including the neonatal period). The calculation has included the side effects and the frozen embryos transfers. Economic data came from various sources: the French nomenclature on medical treatments (NGAP), the French drugs dictionary (Vidal) and the French Information system medical plan (PMSI). FSH costs were computed according to the currently marketed products, i.e., Fostimon (Laboratoires Genévrier, Sophia-Antipolis, France) for urinary FSH, and Gonal-F (Laboratoires Serono, Boulogne-Billancourt, France) and Puregon (Laboratoires Organon, Puteaux, France) for recombinant FSH. Two different ways of efficacy between u-FSH and r-FSH were considered for the calculations, those reported in Daya's meta-analysis (3.7% in favour of r-FSH for the clinical pregnancy rate per initiated cycle) and in the only double-blind study (Frydman et al., no difference). RESULTS: The annual cost of ART reaches approximately 130 million Euros in France, for the cycles only, and 170 million Euros when including the pregnancy costs. Urinary FSH is much cheaper than recombinant FSH. Whereas the number of administered FSH units was higher in u-FSH, this results in a mean lower cost of 500 Euros per cycle (2422 Euros for u-FSH and 2959 Euros for r-FSH). For one complete year, in France, the potential over cost of recombinant products reaches 24 million Euros when considering only the cycles (128.4 vs. 104.0 million Euros) and 24-31 million Euros when pregnancies and babies (neonatal period) are considered (171.4 vs 140.7 and 147.0 million Euros, respectively). The IVF per baby cost can be estimated at 16 463 Euros for r-FSH and at 14 116 Euros (in case of equivalence between the two drugs) to 15 805 Euros (in case of a difference of 3.7% pregnancy per oocyte recovery) for u-FSH. CONCLUSION: This gives Public Health lighting to the choices in the matter of ovulation stimulation. It shows the economic impact of the choice in the FSH type.