Should multi-gene panel testing replace limited BRCA1/2 testing? A review of genetic testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancers

Clinical testing of patients for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndromes began in the mid-1990s with the identification of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. Since then, mutations in dozens of other genes have been correlated to increased breast, ovarian, and other cancer risk. The following decades of data collection and patient advocacy allowed for improvements in medical, legal, social, and ethical advances in genetic testing. Technological advances have made it possible to sequence multiple genes at once in a panel to give patients a more thorough evaluation of their personal cancer risk. Panel testing increases the detection of mutations that lead to increased risk of breast, ovarian, and other cancers and can better guide individualized screening measures compared to limited BRCA testing alone. At the same time, multi-gene panel testing is more time-and cost-efficient. While the clinical application of panel testing is in its infancy, many problems arise such as lack of guidelines for management of newly identified gene mutations, high rates of variants of uncertain significance, and limited ability to screen for some cancers. Through on-going concerted efforts of pooled data collection and analysis, it is likely that the benefits of multi-gene panel testing will outweigh the risks in the near future.

Detection rate of actionable mutations in diverse cancers using a biopsy-free (blood) circulating tumor cell DNA assay

Analysis of cell-free DNA using next-generation sequencing (NGS) is a powerful tool for the detection/monitoring of alterations present in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA). Plasma extracted from 171 patients with a variety of cancers was analyzed for ctDNA (54 genes and copy number variants (CNVs) in three genes (EGFR, ERBB2 and MET)). The most represented cancers were lung (23%), breast (23%), and glioblastoma (19%). Ninety-nine patients (58%) had at least one detectable alteration. The most frequent alterations were TP53 (29.8%), followed by EGFR (17.5%), MET (10.5%), PIK3CA (7%), and NOTCH1 (5.8%). In contrast, of 222 healthy volunteers, only one had an aberration (TP53). Ninety patients with non-brain tumors had a discernible aberration (65% of 138 patients; in 70% of non-brain tumor patients with an alteration, the anomaly was potentially actionable). Interestingly, nine of 33 patients (27%) with glioblastoma had an alteration (6/33 (18%) potentially actionable). Overall, sixty-nine patients had potentially actionable alterations (40% of total; 69.7% of patients (69/99) with alterations); 68 patients (40% of total; 69% of patients with alterations), by a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved drug. In summary, 65% of diverse cancers (as well as 27% of glioblastomas) had detectable ctDNA aberration(s), with the majority theoretically actionable by an approved agent.

Abstract B140: Genomic profiling of over 5,000 consecutive cancer patients with a CLIA-certified cell-free DNA NGS test: Analytic and clinical validity and utility

Background: Analysis of cell-free circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) by next-generation sequencing (NGS) enables non-invasive real-time testing. The Guardant360® (G360) ctDNA panel includes all NCCN-recommended solid tumor genomic targets and sequences complete exons of 68 genes for single nucleotide variants (SNVs), and fusions, amplifications and indels for a subset. We conducted updated validity studies for this larger panel.

Methods: Analytical sensitivity was assessed via serial dilution studies of cell-free DNA (cfDNA) with known alterations spiked into healthy cfDNA background. SNVs detected with G360 were compared to whole-exome sequencing at an outside lab for analytic specificity. Tissue NGS for fusions, SNVs, indels, and/or amplifications was compared to G360 results. Consecutive G360 tests over 12 months were analyzed for assay success rate, yield, mutant allele fractions (MAF), and actionability.

Results: Serial dilution studies confirmed the previously reported 0.1% lower limit of detection. The accuracy and analytic specificity studies were 98.6% concordant, with 3 putative false positives. Sanger sequencing by a 3rd lab for these discordant calls confirmed the G360 calls as true positives, verifying the previously reported >99.9999% specificity. Retrospective review of outside tumor test reports of 56 patients with varied genomic alterations found 90% concordance with G360 (77/86 variants: 4/4 fusions, 9/9 indels, 13/17 amps, 51/56 SNVs). Of 5,491 tests, 99.5% were successfully reported with somatic alterations found in 76% [median MAF 0.42% (range 0.1-92.8%)]. Lung, breast and colon cancers were most common (see Table). Overall, 10% of patients had >1 on-label matched therapy identified, 54% off-label, and 77% had clinical trial options. On-label matched therapy rates rose for lung adenocarcinoma (15%), breast (16%) and colon (16%) cancers (Table 1).

Conclusion: The updated G360 test achieves single-molecule sensitivity to 0.1% MAF and analytical specificity of >99.9999%, as reported previously. Clinical concordance of plasma to tissue-based NGS across all four types of genomic alterations was high, and actionability rose modestly, especially in lung, breast and colon cancer. Clinical utility included biopsy avoidance, rescue of tissue samples with insufficient DNA and tissue-false negatives due to tumor evolution and heterogeneity.

Table 1Cancer Type% of 4,888 unique patients% with ctDNA alterations identified% with on-label therapy options identified% with off-label therapy options identified% with clinical trial options identifiedMost commonly involved gene2nd most commonly involved gene3rd most commonly involved geneLung - ALL33%82%10%52%78%TP53 (55%)KRAS (18%)EGFR (18%)Lung adenocarcinoma11%82%15%56%78%TP53 (51%)EGFR (23%)KRAS (19%)Breast15%74%16%58%79%TP53 (43%)PIK3CA (28%)ERBB2/ESR1 (10%) / (9%)CRC12%82%16%72%88%TP53 (61%)APC (38%)KRAS (38%)PDAC7%70%3%57%72%TP53 (47%)KRAS (42%)PIK3CA (6%)Ovarian3%81%1%42%81%TP53 (69%)PIK3CA (15%)KRAS (11%)CUP3%85%0%64%83%TP53 (40%)KRAS (24%)PIK3CA (14%)All100%76%10%54%77%TP53 (50%)KRAS (17%)PIK3CA (14%)

Citation Format: Kimberly C. Banks, Stefanie A. W. Mortimer, Oliver A. Zill, Richard B. Lanman, Helmy Eltoukhy, AmirAli Talasaz. Genomic profiling of over 5,000 consecutive cancer patients with a CLIA-certified cell-free DNA NGS test: Analytic and clinical validity and utility. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR-NCI-EORTC International Conference: Molecular Targets and Cancer Therapeutics; 2015 Nov 5-9; Boston, MA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Mol Cancer Ther 2015;14(12 Suppl 2):Abstract nr B140.

Benefits and safety of multigene panel testing in patients at risk for hereditary breast cancer

16

Background: Recently introduced multi-gene panel testing including BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes (BRCA1/2) for hereditary cancer risk has raised concerns with the ability to detect all deleterious BRCA1/2 mutations compared to older methods of sequentially testing BRCA1/2 separately. The purpose of this study is to evaluate rates of pathogenic BRCA1/2mutations and variants of uncertain significance (VUS) between previous restricted algorithms of genetic testing and newer approaches of multi-gene testing. Methods: Data was collected retrospectively from 966 patients who underwent genetic testing at one of three sites from a single institution. Test results were compared between patients who underwent BRCA1/2testing only (limited group, n = 629) to those who underwent multi-gene testing with 5-43 cancer-related genes (panel group, n = 337). Results: Deleterious BRCA1/2 mutations were identified in 37 patients, with equivalent rates between limited and panel groups (4.0% vs 3.6%, respectively, p = 0.86). Thirty-nine patients had a BRCA1/2 VUS, with similar rates between limited and panel groups (4.5% vs 3.3%, respectively, p = 0.49). On multivariate analysis, there was no difference in detection of either BRCA1/2 mutations or VUS between both groups. Of patients undergoing panel testing, an additional 3.9% (n = 13) had non-BRCA pathogenic mutations and 13.4% (n = 45) had non-BRCA VUSs. Mutations in PALB2, CHEK2, and ATM were the most common non-BRCA mutations identified. Conclusions: Multi-gene panel testing detects pathogenic BRCA1/2 mutations at equivalent rates as limited testing and increases the diagnostic yield. Panel testing increases the VUS rate, mainly due to non-BRCA genes. Patients at risk for hereditary breast cancer can safely benefit from upfront, more efficient, multi-gene panel testing.

Multigene Panel Testing Detects Equal Rates of Pathogenic BRCA1/2 Mutations and has a Higher Diagnostic Yield Compared to Limited BRCA1/2 Analysis Alone in Patients at Risk for Hereditary Breast Cancer

BACKGROUND

Recently introduced multigene panel testing including BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes for hereditary cancer risk has raised concerns with the ability to detect all deleterious BRCA1/2 mutations compared to older methods of sequentially testing BRCA1/2 separately. The purpose of this study was to evaluate rates of pathogenic BRCA1/2 mutations and variants of uncertain significance (VUS) between previous restricted algorithms of genetic testing and newer approaches of multigene testing.

METHODS

Data was collected retrospectively from 966 patients who underwent genetic testing at one of three sites from a single institution. Test results were compared between patients who underwent BRCA1/2 testing only (limited group, n = 629) to those who underwent multigene testing with 5-43 cancer-related genes (panel group, n = 337).

RESULTS

Deleterious BRCA1/2 mutations were identified in 37 patients, with equivalent rates between limited and panel groups (4.0 vs. 3.6%, respectively, p = 0.86). Thirty-nine patients had a BRCA1/2 VUS, with similar rates between limited and panel groups (4.5 vs. 3.3%, respectively, p = 0.49). On multivariate analysis, there was no difference in detection of either BRCA1/2 mutations or VUS between both groups. Of patients undergoing panel testing, an additional 3.9 % (n = 13) had non-BRCA pathogenic mutations and 13.4% (n = 45) had non-BRCA VUSs. Mutations in PALB2, CHEK2, and ATM were the most common non-BRCA mutations identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Multigene panel testing detects pathogenic BRCA1/2 mutations at equivalent rates as limited testing and increases the diagnostic yield. Panel testing increases the VUS rate, mainly as a result of non-BRCA genes. Patients at risk for hereditary breast cancer can safely benefit from up-front, more efficient, multigene panel testing.

Closing the loop: action research in a multimodal hereditary cancer patient conference is an effective tool to assess and address patient needs

This paper describes the use of action research in a patient conference to provide updated hereditary cancer information, explore patient and family member needs and experiences related to genetic cancer risk assessment (GCRA), elicit feedback on how to improve the GCRA process, and inform future research efforts. Invitees completed GCRA at City of Hope or collaborating facilities and had a BRCA mutation or a strong personal or family history of breast cancer. Action research activities were facilitated by surveys, round table discussions, and reflection time to engage participants, faculty, and researchers in multiple cycles of reciprocal feedback. The multimodal action research design effectively engaged conference participants to share their experiences, needs, and ideas for improvements to the GCRA process. Participants indicated that they highly valued the information and resources provided and desired similar future conferences. The use of action research in a patient conference is an innovative and effective approach to provide health education, elicit experiences, identify and help address needs of high-risk patients and their family members, and generate research hypotheses. Insights gained yielded valuable feedback to inform clinical care, future health services research, and continuing medical education activities. These methods may also be effective in other practice settings.

Selection criteria for genetic assessment of patients with familial melanoma

Approximately 5% to 10% of melanoma may be hereditary in nature, and about 2% of melanoma can be specifically attributed to pathogenic germline mutations in cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor 2A (CDKN2A). To appropriately identify the small proportion of patients who benefit most from referral to a genetics specialist for consideration of genetic testing for CDKN2A, we have reviewed available published studies of CDKN2A mutation analysis in cohorts with invasive, cutaneous melanoma and found variability in the rate of CDKN2A mutations based on geography, ethnicity, and the type of study and eligibility criteria used. Except in regions of high melanoma incidence, such as Australia, we found higher rates of CDKN2A positivity in individuals with 3 or more primary invasive melanomas and/or families with at least one invasive melanoma and two or more other diagnoses of invasive melanoma and/or pancreatic cancer among first- or second-degree relatives on the same side of the family. The work summarized in this review should help identify individuals who are appropriate candidates for referral for genetic consultation and possible testing.

Survey of unaffected BRCA and mismatch repair (MMR) mutation positive individuals

Many individuals do not proceed with cancer predisposition testing due to fears of genetic discrimination (GD). We report the results of a survey of 47 unaffected, mutation positive individuals regarding insurance outcomes. Participants recruited from six different Cancer Risk Programs across the country were queried about their experiences with health, life, and disability insurance, as well as employment issues. Eighty-seven percent of participants carried a BRCA mutation and 87% were part of a group insurance plan at the time of testing. Forty-seven percent of participants self-paid for testing. Less than 10% of participants reported that their results were placed in the general medical record, while 43% did not know where their results were placed. Due to concerns about GD, 13% of participants stated they avoided changing jobs. Thirteen percent stated that their at-risk relatives had not undergone testing for the familial mutation due to fears about GD. Adverse events following genetic testing included two denials from private health insurers, one denial for average life insurance coverage and one denial for additional disability insurance. There were no reports of job discrimination. Results suggest fear of GD is prevalent, yet data do not support evidence that GD exists.