Potential pathogenic germline variant reporting from tumor comprehensive genomic profiling complements classic approaches to germline testing.

Existing guidance regarding clinically informed germline testing for patients with cancer is effective for evaluation of classic hereditary cancer syndromes and established gene/cancer type associations. However, current screening methods may miss patients with rare, reduced penetrance, or otherwise occult hereditary risk. Secondary finding of suspected germline variants that may confer inherited cancer risk via tumor comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) has the potential to help address these limitations. However, reporting practices for secondary finding of germline variants are inconsistent, necessitating solutions for transparent and coherent communication of these potentially important findings. A workflow for improved confidence detection and clear reporting of potential pathogenic germline variants (PPGV) in select cancer susceptibility genes (CSG) was applied to a research dataset from real-world clinical tumor CGP of > 125,000 patients with advanced cancer. The presence and patterns of PPGVs identified across tumor types was assessed with a focus on scenarios in which traditional clinical germline evaluation may have been insufficient to capture genetic risk. PPGVs were identified in 9.7% of tumor CGP cases using tissue- and liquid-based assays across a broad range of cancer types, including in a number of "off-tumor" contexts. Overall, PPGVs were identified in a similar proportion of cancers with National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) recommendations for germline testing regardless of family history (11%) as in all other cancer types (9%). These findings suggest that tumor CGP can serve as a tool that is complementary to traditional germline genetic evaluation in helping to ascertain inherited susceptibility in patients with advanced cancer.

When Should Tumor Genomic Profiling Prompt Consideration of Germline Testing?

Somatic genomic testing is rapidly becoming an integral part of care for patients with metastatic cancer. Extrapolation of these results beyond personalized cancer therapy is a skill being demanded of practicing oncologists without prior specialty in genetics. Up to 12% of tumor genomic profiling reports will reveal a germline pathogenic variant. Recognition of these germline variants is essential not only for optimal care of the patient with cancer but also to initiate cascade genetic testing in at-risk family members who also may carry the familial mutation. This article provides a concise and methodical, evidence-based strategy to guide oncology providers about how to identify genes associated with an inherited predisposition for cancer, determine the pathogenicity of variants reported within those genes, and understand the likelihood that these variants are of germline origin in a particular patient with cancer. Case examples are provided to illustrate clinical scenarios and facilitate application of the proposed approach.

Family communication and patient distress after germline genetic testing in individuals with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Germline genetic testing currently is recommended for patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). In the current study, the authors assessed how often results are communicated to first-degree relatives within 3 months and the emotional impact of testing on patients. METHODS: A total of 148 patients who were newly diagnosed with PDAC and who had undergone testing of 32 cancer susceptibility genes at 3 academic centers were selected; 71% participated. Subjects completed the Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (MICRA) and a family communication survey. The results of both surveys were assessed at 3 months according to the genetic test result (positive, negative, or variant of unknown significance [VUS]) and whether a patient met criteria for genetic testing. RESULTS: A total of 99 patients completed the MICRA survey and 104 completed the family communication survey. The average age of the patients was 67 years, 47% were female, 29% had stage III/IV (AJCC 8th edition) disease, and 42% met genetic testing criteria. Approximately 80% of patients told at least 1 first-degree relative about their result. There was a trend toward greater disclosure among patients who tested positive (93% vs 77% for those with a VUS result [P = .149] and 74% for those who tested negative [P = .069]). Patients not meeting genetic testing criteria were less likely to disclose results (69% vs 93%; P = .003). MICRA scores did not differ by test result, age, stage of disease, or sex. CONCLUSIONS: The rate of result communication was high, although it was lower among patients who did not meet genetic testing criteria, those who tested negative, or those who had a VUS result. Testing-associated distress was similar across patient groups, and was comparable to that reported by other patients with cancer. Improved communication for all patients is crucial given the prognosis of PDAC, which limits time for disclosure.

Prospective study of germline genetic testing in incident cases of pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to investigate the prevalence of pathogenic germline variants (PGVs) in 32 cancer susceptibility genes in individuals with newly diagnosed pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). A key secondary objective was to evaluate how often PGVs would have been undetected with existing genetic testing criteria. METHODS: From May 2016 through May 2017, this multicenter cohort study enrolled consecutive patients aged 18 to 89 years with histologically confirmed PDAC diagnosed within the previous 12 weeks. Demographics, medical histories, and 3-generation pedigrees were collected from participants who provided samples for germline DNA analysis. RESULTS: Four hundred nineteen patients were deemed eligible, 302 were enrolled, and 298 were included in the final cohort. Clinically actionable variants were reported in 29 PDAC patients (9.7%), with 23 (7.7%) having a PGV associated with an increased risk for PDAC. Six of 23 individuals (26%) with PDAC-associated gene mutations did not meet currently established genetic testing criteria. According to guideline-based genetic testing, only 11 of the 23 PGVs (48%) in known PDAC genes would have been detected. Six additional patients (2%) had PGVs associated with an increased risk for other cancers. CONCLUSIONS: These findings support the significant prevalence of PGVs associated with PDAC and the limitations of current paradigms for selecting patients for genetic testing, and they thereby lend support for universal germline multigene genetic testing in this population.

Frequency of mutations in individuals with breast cancer referred for BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing using next-generation sequencing with a 25-gene panel.

BACKGROUND: Next-generation sequencing (NGS) allows for simultaneous sequencing of multiple cancer susceptibility genes and, for an individual, may be more efficient and less expensive than sequential testing. The authors assessed the frequency of deleterious germline mutations among individuals with breast cancer who were referred for BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) gene testing using a panel of 25 genes associated with inherited cancer predisposition. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study using NGS in 2158 individuals, including 1781 who were referred for commercial BRCA1/2 gene testing (cohort 1) and 377 who had detailed personal and family history and had previously tested negative for BRCA1/2 mutations (cohort 2). RESULTS: Mutations were identified in 16 genes, most frequently in BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, ATM, and PALB2. Among the participants in cohort 1, 9.3% carried a BRCA1/2 mutation, 3.9% carried a mutation in another breast/ovarian cancer susceptibility gene, and 0.3% carried an incidental mutation in another cancer susceptibility gene unrelated to breast or ovarian cancer. In cohort 2, the frequency of mutations in breast/ovarian-associated genes other than BRCA1/2 was 2.9%, and an additional 0.8% had an incidental mutation. In cohort 1, Lynch syndrome-related mutations were identified in 7 individuals. In contrast to BRCA1/2 mutations, neither age at breast cancer diagnosis nor family history of ovarian or young breast cancer predicted for other mutations. The frequency of mutations in genes other than BRCA1/2 was lower in Ashkenazi Jews compared with non-Ashkenazi individuals (P=.026). CONCLUSIONS: Using an NGS 25-gene panel, the frequency of mutations in genes other than BRCA1/2 was 4.3%, and most mutations (3.9%) were identified in genes associated with breast/ovarian cancer.