Discrepancies between tumor genomic profiling and germline genetic testing

Tumor-Only Sequencing: A Story Only Half Told

Germline testing and tumor sequencing are often both necessary for optimal cancer treatment and management.

Genomic testing for germline predisposition to hematologic malignancies

Germline predisposition (GPD) to hematological malignancies has gained interest because of the increased use of genetic testing in this field. Recent studies have suggested that GPD is underrecognized and requires appropriate genomic testing for an accurate diagnosis. Identification of GPD significantly affects patient management and has diverse implications for family members. This review discusses the reasons for testing GPD in hematologic malignancies and explores the considerations necessary for appropriate genomic testing. The aim is to provide insights into how these genetic insights can inform treatment strategies and genetic counseling, ultimately enhancing patient care.

Clinically significant germline pathogenic variants are missed by tumor genomic sequencing

A germline pathogenic variant may be present even if the results of tumor genomic sequencing do not suggest one. There are key differences in the assay design and reporting of variants between germline and somatic laboratories. When appropriate, both tests should be completed to aid in therapy decisions and determining optimal screening and risk-reduction interventions.

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.

Aligning Germline Cancer Predisposition With Tumor-Based Next-Generation Sequencing for Modern Oncology Diagnosis, Interception, and Therapeutic Development

In the era of precision medicine, genomic interrogation for identification of both germline and somatic genetic alterations has become increasingly important. While such germline testing was usually undertaken via a phenotype-driven single-gene approach, with the advent of next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies, the widespread utilization of multigene panels, often agnostic of cancer phenotype, has become a commonplace in many different cancer types. At the same time, somatic tumor testing in oncology performed for the purpose of guiding therapeutic decisions for targeted therapies has also rapidly expanded, recently starting to incorporate not just patients with recurrent or metastatic cancer but even patients with early-stage disease. An integrated approach may be the best approach for the optimal management of patients with different cancers. The lack of complete congruence between germline and somatic NGS tests does not minimize the power or importance of either, but highlights the need to understand their limitations so as not to overlook an important finding or omission. NGS tests built to more uniformly and comprehensively evaluate both the germline and tumor simultaneously are urgently required and are in development. In this article, we discuss approaches to somatic and germline analyses in patients with cancer and the knowledge gained from integration of tumor-normal sequencing. We also detail strategies for the incorporation of genomic analysis into oncology care delivery models and the important emergence of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase and other DNA Damage Response inhibitors in the clinic for patients with cancer with germline and somatic BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations.

Genetic Aspects and Molecular Testing in Prostate Cancer: A Report from a Dutch Multidisciplinary Consensus Meeting

Background

Germline and tumour genetic testing in prostate cancer (PCa) is becoming more broadly accepted, but testing indications and clinical consequences for carriers in each disease stage are not yet well defined.

Objective

To determine the consensus of a Dutch multidisciplinary expert panel on the indication and application of germline and tumour genetic testing in PCa.

Design setting and participants

The panel consisted of 39 specialists involved in PCa management. We used a modified Delphi method consisting of two voting rounds and a virtual consensus meeting.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis

Consensus was reached if ≥75% of the panellists chose the same option. Appropriateness was assessed by the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method.

Results and limitations

Of the multiple-choice questions, 44% reached consensus. For men without PCa having a relevant family history (familial PCa/BRCA-related hereditary cancer), follow-up by prostate-specific antigen was considered appropriate. For patients with low-risk localised PCa and a family history of PCa, active surveillance was considered appropriate, except in case of the patient being a BRCA2 germline pathogenic variant carrier. Germline and tumour genetic testing should not be done for nonmetastatic hormone-sensitive PCa in the absence of a relevant family history of cancer. Tumour genetic testing was deemed most appropriate for the identification of actionable variants, with uncertainty for germline testing. For tumour genetic testing in metastatic castration-resistant PCa, consensus was not reached for the timing and panel composition. The principal limitations are as follows: (1) a number of topics discussed lack scientific evidence, and therefore the recommendations are partly opinion based, and (2) there was a small number of experts per discipline.

Conclusions

The outcomes of this Dutch consensus meeting may provide further guidance on genetic counselling and molecular testing related to PCa.

Patient summary

A group of Dutch specialists discussed the use of germline and tumour genetic testing in prostate cancer (PCa) patients, indication of these tests (which patients and when), and impact of these tests on the management and treatment of PCa.

Genetic predisposition to cancers in children and adolescents

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Childhood cancer is rare, but it remains the leading cause of disease-related mortality among children 1-14 years of age. As exposure to environmental factors is lower in children, inherited genetic factors become an important player in the cause of childhood cancer. This review highlights the current knowledge and approach for cancer predisposition syndromes in children.

RECENT FINDINGS

Current literature suggests that 10-18% of paediatric cancer patients have an underlying genetic susceptibility to their disease. With better knowledge and technology, more genes and syndromes are being discovered, allowing tailored treatment and surveillance for the probands and their families.Studies have demonstrated that focused surveillance can detect early malignancies and increase overall survival in several cancer predisposition syndromes. Various approaches have been proposed to refine early tumour detection strategies while minimizing the burden on patients and families. Newer therapeutic strategies are being investigated to treat, or even prevent, tumours in children with cancer predisposition.

SUMMARY

This review summarizes the current knowledge about different cancer predisposition syndromes, focusing on the diagnosis, genetic counselling, surveillance and future directions.