Germline potential should not be overlooked for cancer variants identified in tumour-only somatic mutation testing.

DNA sequencing of tumour tissue has become the standard care for many solid cancers because of the option to detect somatic variants that have significant therapeutic, diagnostic and prognostic implications. Variants found within the tumour may be either somatic or germline in origin. Somatic cancer gene panels are developed to detect acquired (somatic) variants that are relevant for therapeutic or molecular characterisation of the tumour, expanding gene panels now include genes which may also inform patient management such as cancer predisposition syndromes (CPS) genes. Identifying germline cancer predisposition variants can alter cancer management, the risk of developing new primary cancers and risk for cancer in at-risk family members. This paper discusses the clinical, technical and ethical challenges related to identifying and reporting potential germline pathogenic variants that are detected on tumour sequencing. It also highlights the existence of the eviQ national guidelines for CPS with advice on germline confirmation of somatic findings to pathology laboratories in Australia.

Germline-focused analysis of tumour-detected variants in 49,264 cancer patients: ESMO Precision Medicine Working Group recommendations.

BACKGROUND: The European Society for Medical Oncology Precision Medicine Working Group (ESMO PMWG) was reconvened to update its 2018/19 recommendations on follow-up of putative germline variants detected on tumour-only sequencing, which were based on an analysis of 17 152 cancers. METHODS: We analysed an expanded dataset including 49 264 paired tumour-normal samples. We applied filters to tumour-detected variants based on variant allele frequency, predicted pathogenicity and population variant frequency. For 58 cancer-susceptibility genes, we then examined the proportion of filtered tumour-detected variants of true germline origin [germline conversion rate (GCR)]. We conducted subanalyses based on the age of cancer diagnosis, specific tumour types and 'on-tumour' status (established tumour-gene association). RESULTS: Analysis of 45 472 nonhypermutated solid malignancy tumour samples yielded 21 351 filtered tumour-detected variants of which 3515 were of true germline origin. 3.1% of true germline pathogenic variants were absent from the filtered tumour-detected variants. For genes such as BRCA1, BRCA2 and PALB2, the GCR in filtered tumour-detected variants was >80%; conversely for TP53, APC and STK11 this GCR was <2%. CONCLUSION: Strategic germline-focused analysis can prioritise a subset of tumour-detected variants for which germline follow-up will produce the highest yield of most actionable true germline variants. We present updated recommendations around germline follow-up of tumour-only sequencing including (i) revision to 5% for the minimum per-gene GCR, (ii) inclusion of actionable intermediate penetrance genes ATM and CHEK2, (iii) definition of a set of seven 'most actionable' cancer-susceptibility genes (BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6 and RET) in which germline follow-up is recommended regardless of tumour type.