Assigning clinical meaning to somatic and germ-line whole-exome sequencing data in a prospective cancer precision medicine study.

PURPOSE: Implementing cancer precision medicine in the clinic requires assessing the therapeutic relevance of genomic alterations. A main challenge is the systematic interpretation of whole-exome sequencing (WES) data for clinical care. METHODS: One hundred sixty-five adults with metastatic colorectal and lung adenocarcinomas were prospectively enrolled in the CanSeq study. WES was performed on DNA extracted from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumor biopsy samples and matched blood samples. Somatic and germ-line alterations were ranked according to therapeutic or clinical relevance. Results were interpreted using an integrated somatic and germ-line framework and returned in accordance with patient preferences. RESULTS: At the time of this analysis, WES had been performed and results returned to the clinical team for 165 participants. Of 768 curated somatic alterations, only 31% were associated with clinical evidence and 69% with preclinical or inferential evidence. Of 806 curated germ-line variants, 5% were clinically relevant and 56% were classified as variants of unknown significance. The variant review and decision-making processes were effective when the process was changed from that of a Molecular Tumor Board to a protocol-based approach. CONCLUSION: The development of novel interpretive and decision-support tools that draw from scientific and clinical evidence will be crucial for the success of cancer precision medicine in WES studies.Genet Med advance online publication 26 January 2017.

Oncologists' and cancer patients' views on whole-exome sequencing and incidental findings: results from the CanSeq study.

PURPOSE: Although targeted sequencing improves outcomes for many cancer patients, it remains uncertain how somatic and germ-line whole-exome sequencing (WES) will integrate into care. METHODS: We conducted surveys and interviews within a study of WES integration at an academic center to determine oncologists' attitudes about WES and to identify lung and colorectal cancer patients' preferences for learning WES findings. RESULTS: One-hundred sixty-seven patients (85% white, 58% female, mean age 60) and 27 oncologists (22% female) participated. Although oncologists had extensive experience ordering somatic tests (median 100/year), they had little experience ordering germ-line tests. Oncologists intended to disclose most WES results to patients but anticipated numerous challenges in using WES. Patients had moderately low levels of genetic knowledge (mean 4 correct out of 7). Most patients chose to learn results that could help select a clinical trial, pharmacogenetic and positive prognostic results, and results suggesting inherited predisposition to cancer and treatable noncancer conditions (all ≥95%). Fewer chose to receive negative prognostic results (84%) and results suggesting predisposition to untreatable noncancer conditions (85%). CONCLUSION: The majority of patients want most cancer-related and incidental WES results. Patients' low levels of genetic knowledge and oncologists' inexperience with large-scale sequencing present challenges to implementing paired WES in practice.Genet Med 18 10, 1011-1019.

Acquired HER2 mutations in ER+ metastatic breast cancer confer resistance to estrogen receptor-directed therapies.

Seventy percent of breast cancers express the estrogen receptor (ER), and agents that target the ER are the mainstay of treatment. However, virtually all people with ER+ breast cancer develop resistance to ER-directed agents in the metastatic setting. Beyond mutations in the ER itself, which occur in 25-30% of people treated with aromatase inhibitors1-4, knowledge about clinical resistance mechanisms remains incomplete. We identified activating HER2 mutations in metastatic biopsies from eight patients with ER+ metastatic breast cancer who had developed resistance to aromatase inhibitors, tamoxifen or fulvestrant. Examination of treatment-naive primary tumors in five patients showed no evidence of pre-existing mutations in four of five patients, suggesting that these mutations were acquired under the selective pressure of ER-directed therapy. The HER2 mutations and ER mutations were mutually exclusive, suggesting a distinct mechanism of acquired resistance to ER-directed therapies. In vitro analysis confirmed that the HER2 mutations conferred estrogen independence as well as-in contrast to ER mutations-resistance to tamoxifen, fulvestrant and the CDK4 and CDK6 inhibitor palbociclib. Resistance was overcome by combining ER-directed therapy with the irreversible HER2 kinase inhibitor neratinib.

Interactive or static reports to guide clinical interpretation of cancer genomics.

Objective: Misinterpretation of complex genomic data presents a major challenge in the implementation of precision oncology. We sought to determine whether interactive genomic reports with embedded clinician education and optimized data visualization improved genomic data interpretation. Materials and Methods: We conducted a randomized, vignette-based survey study to determine whether exposure to interactive reports for a somatic gene panel, as compared to static reports, improves physicians' genomic comprehension and report-related satisfaction (overall scores calculated across 3 vignettes, range 0-18 and 1-4, respectively, higher score corresponding with improved endpoints). Results: One hundred and five physicians at a tertiary cancer center participated (29% participation rate): 67% medical, 20% pediatric, 7% radiation, and 7% surgical oncology; 37% female. Prior to viewing the case-based vignettes, 34% of the physicians reported difficulty making treatment recommendations based on the standard static report. After vignette/report exposure, physicians' overall comprehension scores did not differ by report type (mean score: interactive 11.6 vs static 10.5, difference = 1.1, 95% CI, -0.3, 2.5, P = .13). However, physicians exposed to the interactive report were more likely to correctly assess sequencing quality (P < .001) and understand when reports needed to be interpreted with caution (eg, low tumor purity; P = .02). Overall satisfaction scores were higher in the interactive group (mean score 2.5 vs 2.1, difference = 0.4, 95% CI, 0.2-0.7, P = .001). Discussion and Conclusion: Interactive genomic reports may improve physicians' ability to accurately assess genomic data and increase report-related satisfaction. Additional research in users' genomic needs and efforts to integrate interactive reports into electronic health records may facilitate the implementation of precision oncology.

Real-time Genomic Characterization of Advanced Pancreatic Cancer to Enable Precision Medicine.

Clinically relevant subtypes exist for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), but molecular characterization is not yet standard in clinical care. We implemented a biopsy protocol to perform time-sensitive whole-exome sequencing and RNA sequencing for patients with advanced PDAC. Therapeutically relevant genomic alterations were identified in 48% (34/71) and pathogenic/likely pathogenic germline alterations in 18% (13/71) of patients. Overall, 30% (21/71) of enrolled patients experienced a change in clinical management as a result of genomic data. Twenty-six patients had germline and/or somatic alterations in DNA-damage repair genes, and 5 additional patients had mutational signatures of homologous recombination deficiency but no identified causal genomic alteration. Two patients had oncogenic in-frame BRAF deletions, and we report the first clinical evidence that this alteration confers sensitivity to MAPK pathway inhibition. Moreover, we identified tumor/stroma gene expression signatures with clinical relevance. Collectively, these data demonstrate the feasibility and value of real-time genomic characterization of advanced PDAC.Significance: Molecular analyses of metastatic PDAC tumors are challenging due to the heterogeneous cellular composition of biopsy specimens and rapid progression of the disease. Using an integrated multidisciplinary biopsy program, we demonstrate that real-time genomic characterization of advanced PDAC can identify clinically relevant alterations that inform management of this difficult disease. Cancer Discov; 8(9); 1096-111. ©2018 AACR.See related commentary by Collisson, p. 1062This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 1047.

The fuzzy world of precision medicine: deliberations of a precision medicine tumor board.

AIM: To understand how a cancer precision medicine tumor board (CPM-TB) made choices about return of results. MATERIALS & METHODS: Observed CPM-TB deliberations and completed in-depth interviews with committee members. RESULTS: Responding to complex evidence of ambiguous significance, deliberations of the CPM-TB were predicated on analytic validity and clinical utility. Members had concerns both about potential harms due to returning results based on weak evidence and about withholding potentially meaningful results. Group dynamics and the clinical experiences of individual committee members shaped their work. CONCLUSION: Both scientific evidence and the social context surrounding deliberations of a CPM-TB influenced decisions about return of results. Subjective elements, while present in any scientific endeavor, may carry more weight in the face of ambiguous findings.

Scalable whole-exome sequencing of cell-free DNA reveals high concordance with metastatic tumors.

Whole-exome sequencing of cell-free DNA (cfDNA) could enable comprehensive profiling of tumors from blood but the genome-wide concordance between cfDNA and tumor biopsies is uncertain. Here we report ichorCNA, software that quantifies tumor content in cfDNA from 0.1× coverage whole-genome sequencing data without prior knowledge of tumor mutations. We apply ichorCNA to 1439 blood samples from 520 patients with metastatic prostate or breast cancers. In the earliest tested sample for each patient, 34% of patients have ≥10% tumor-derived cfDNA, sufficient for standard coverage whole-exome sequencing. Using whole-exome sequencing, we validate the concordance of clonal somatic mutations (88%), copy number alterations (80%), mutational signatures, and neoantigens between cfDNA and matched tumor biopsies from 41 patients with ≥10% cfDNA tumor content. In summary, we provide methods to identify patients eligible for comprehensive cfDNA profiling, revealing its applicability to many patients, and demonstrate high concordance of cfDNA and metastatic tumor whole-exome sequencing.

The impact of tumor profiling approaches and genomic data strategies for cancer precision medicine.

BACKGROUND: The diversity of clinical tumor profiling approaches (small panels to whole exomes with matched or unmatched germline analysis) may engender uncertainty about their benefits and liabilities, particularly in light of reported germline false positives in tumor-only profiling and use of global mutational and/or neoantigen data. The goal of this study was to determine the impact of genomic analysis strategies on error rates and data interpretation across contexts and ancestries. METHODS: We modeled common tumor profiling modalities-large (n = 300 genes), medium (n = 48 genes), and small (n = 15 genes) panels-using clinical whole exomes (WES) from 157 patients with lung or colon adenocarcinoma. We created a tumor-only analysis algorithm to assess germline false positive rates, the impact of patient ancestry on tumor-only results, and neoantigen detection. RESULTS: After optimizing a germline filtering strategy, the germline false positive rate with tumor-only large panel sequencing was 14 % (144/1012 variants). For patients whose tumor-only results underwent molecular pathologist review (n = 91), 50/54 (93 %) false positives were correctly interpreted as uncertain variants. Increased germline false positives were observed in tumor-only sequencing of non-European compared with European ancestry patients (p < 0.001; Fisher's exact) when basic germline filtering approaches were used; however, the ExAC database (60,706 germline exomes) mitigated this disparity (p = 0.53). Matched and unmatched large panel mutational load correlated with WES mutational load (r(2) = 0.99 and 0.93, respectively; p < 0.001). Neoantigen load also correlated (r(2) = 0.80; p < 0.001), though WES identified a broader spectrum of neoantigens. Small panels did not predict mutational or neoantigen load. CONCLUSIONS: Large tumor-only targeted panels are sufficient for most somatic variant identification and mutational load prediction if paired with expanded germline analysis strategies and molecular pathologist review. Paired germline sequencing reduced overall false positive mutation calls and WES provided the most neoantigens. Without patient-matched germline data, large germline databases are needed to minimize false positive mutation calling and mitigate ethnic disparities.