Discrepancies between tumor genomic profiling and germline genetic testing.

BACKGROUND: Tumor genomic profiling (TGP) often incidentally identifies germline pathogenic variants (PVs) associated with cancer predisposition syndromes. Methods used by somatic testing laboratories, including germline analysis, differ from designated germline laboratories that have optimized the identification of germline PVs. This study evaluated discrepancies between somatic and germline testing results, and their impact on patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Chart reviews were carried out at a single institution for patients who had both somatic and designated germline genetic testing. Cases with discrepant results in which germline PVs were not detected by the somatic laboratory or in which variant classification differed are summarized. RESULTS: TGP was carried out on 2811 cancer patients, 600 of whom also underwent designated germline genetic testing. Germline PVs were identified for 109 individuals. Discrepancies between germline genetic testing and tumor profiling reports were identified in 20 cases, including 14 PVs identified by designated germline genetic testing laboratories that were not reported by somatic testing laboratories and six variants with discrepant classifications between the designated germline and somatic testing laboratories. Three PVs identified by designated germline laboratories are targets for poly adenosine diphosphate-ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors and resulted in different treatment options. Of the PVs identified by designated germline laboratories, 60% (n = 12) were in genes with established associations to the patients' cancer, and 40% of the PVs were incidental. The majority (90%) of all discrepant findings, both contributory and incidental, changed management recommendations for these patients, highlighting the importance of comprehensive germline assessment. CONCLUSIONS: Methods used by somatic laboratories, regardless of the inclusion of germline analysis, differ from those of designated germline laboratories for identifying germline PVs. Unrecognized germline PVs may harm patients by missing hereditary syndromes and targeted therapy opportunities (e.g. anti-programmed cell death protein 1 immunotherapy, PARP inhibitors). Clinicians should refer patients who meet the criteria for genetic evaluation regardless of somatic testing outcomes.

Multigene testing of moderate-risk genes: be mindful of the missense.

BACKGROUND: Moderate-risk genes have not been extensively studied, and missense substitutions in them are generally returned to patients as variants of uncertain significance lacking clearly defined risk estimates. The fraction of early-onset breast cancer cases carrying moderate-risk genotypes and quantitative methods for flagging variants for further analysis have not been established. METHODS: We evaluated rare missense substitutions identified from a mutation screen of ATM, CHEK2, MRE11A, RAD50, NBN, RAD51, RINT1, XRCC2 and BARD1 in 1297 cases of early-onset breast cancer and 1121 controls via scores from Align-Grantham Variation Grantham Deviation (GVGD), combined annotation dependent depletion (CADD), multivariate analysis of protein polymorphism (MAPP) and PolyPhen-2. We also evaluated subjects by polygenotype from 18 breast cancer risk SNPs. From these analyses, we estimated the fraction of cases and controls that reach a breast cancer OR≥2.5 threshold. RESULTS: Analysis of mutation screening data from the nine genes revealed that 7.5% of cases and 2.4% of controls were carriers of at least one rare variant with an average OR≥2.5. 2.1% of cases and 1.2% of controls had a polygenotype with an average OR≥2.5. CONCLUSIONS: Among early-onset breast cancer cases, 9.6% had a genotype associated with an increased risk sufficient to affect clinical management recommendations. Over two-thirds of variants conferring this level of risk were rare missense substitutions in moderate-risk genes. Placement in the estimated OR≥2.5 group by at least two of these missense analysis programs should be used to prioritise variants for further study. Panel testing often creates more heat than light; quantitative approaches to variant prioritisation and classification may facilitate more efficient clinical classification of variants.

Interest and informational preferences regarding genomic testing for modest increases in colorectal cancer risk.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: This study explored the interest in genomic testing for modest changes in colorectal cancer risk and preferences for receiving genomic risk communications among individuals with intermediate disease risk due to a family history of colorectal cancer. METHODS: Surveys were conducted on 272 men and women at intermediate risk for colorectal cancer enrolled in a randomized trial comparing a remote personalized risk communication intervention (TeleCARE) aimed at promoting colonoscopy to a generic print control condition. Guided by Leventhal's Common Sense Model of Self-Regulation, we examined demographic and psychosocial factors possibly associated with interest in SNP testing. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression models were used to identify factors associated with interest in SNP testing and preferences for receiving genomic risk communications. RESULTS: Three-fourths of participants expressed interest in SNP testing for colorectal cancer risk. Testing interest did not markedly change across behavior modifier scenarios. Participants preferred to receive genomic risk communications from a variety of sources: printed materials (69.5%), oncologists (54.8%), primary-care physicians (58.4%), and the web (58.1%). Overall, persons who were unmarried (p = 0.029), younger (p = 0.003) and with greater cancer-related fear (p = 0.019) were more likely to express interest in predictive genomic testing for colorectal cancer risk. In a stratified analysis, cancer-related fear was associated with the interest in predictive genomic testing in the intervention group (p = 0.017), but not the control group. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with intermediate familial risk for colorectal cancer are highly interested in genomic testing for modest increases in disease risk, specifically unmarried persons, younger age groups and those with greater cancer fear.

Biallelic inactivation of the APC gene is associated with hepatocellular carcinoma in familial adenomatous polyposis coli.

BACKGROUND: Certain primary hepatic tumors have been associated with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP), a condition caused by germline mutations of the adenomatous polyposis coli (APC) gene. However, a genetic association between FAP and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has not been shown. This study tested the hypothesis that biallelic inactivation of the APC gene contributed to the development of HCC in a patient with FAP and a known germline mutation of the APC gene at codon 208, but no other risk factors for HCC. METHODS: Total RNA and genomic DNA were isolated from the tumor, and in vitro synthesized protein assay and DNA sequencing analysis were used to screen for a somatic mutation in the APC gene. RESULTS: A somatic one-base pair deletion at codon 568 was identified in the wild-type allele of the APC gene. CONCLUSIONS: To the authors' knowledge, this study provides the first evidence that biallelic inactivation of the APC gene may contribute to the development of HCC in patients with FAP.