RESUMO
The clinical standard of care for urothelial carcinoma (UC) relies on invasive procedures with suboptimal performance. To enhance UC treatment, we developed a urinary comprehensive genomic profiling (uCGP) test, UroAmplitude, that measures mutations from tumor DNA present in urine. In this study, we performed a blinded, prospective validation of technical sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV) using reference standards, and found at 1% allele frequency, mutation detection performs at 97.4% sensitivity and 80.4% PPV. We then prospectively compared the mutation profiles of urine-extracted DNA to those of matched tumor tissue to validate clinical performance. Here, we found tumor single-nucleotide variants were observed in the urine with a median concordance of 91.7% and uCGP revealed distinct patterns of genomic lesions enriched in low- and high-grade disease. Finally, we retrospectively explored longitudinal case studies to quantify residual disease following bladder-sparing treatments, and found uCGP detected residual disease in patients receiving bladder-sparing treatment and predicted recurrence and disease progression. These findings demonstrate the potential of the UroAmplitude platform to reliably identify and track mutations associated with UC at each stage of disease: diagnosis, treatment, and surveillance. Multiple case studies demonstrate utility for patient risk classification to guide both surgical and therapeutic interventions.
RESUMO
CONTEXT.: Next-generation sequencing is a powerful clinical tool for cancer management but can produce incidental/secondary findings that require special consideration. OBJECTIVE.: To discuss clinical and laboratory issues related to incidental or secondary germline findings in the clinical setting of tumor testing and inform future guidelines in this area. DESIGN.: A College of American Pathologists workgroup including representation from the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the Association for Molecular Pathology, and the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics created a review of items that should be considered when developing guidelines for incidental or secondary findings when performing clinical tumor testing. RESULTS.: Testing recommendations should be cognizant of the differences among anticipated incidental, unanticipated incidental, and secondary findings, and whether normal tissue is also tested. In addition to defining which variants will be reported, robust recommendations must also take into account test design and validation, reimbursement, cost, infrastructure, impact on reflex testing, and maintenance of proficiency. Care providers need to consider the potential of a test to uncover incidental or secondary findings, the recommendation of upfront counseling, the need for consent, the timing of testing and counseling, and that the exact significance of a finding may not be clear. CONCLUSIONS.: As clinical oncology testing panels have become a mainstay of clinical cancer care, guidelines addressing the unique aspects of incidental and secondary findings in oncology testing are needed. This paper highlights clinical and laboratory considerations with regard to incidental/secondary findings and is a clarion call to create recommendations.
