The detection of germline and somatic BRCA1/2 genetic variants through parallel testing of patients with high-grade serous ovarian cancer: a national retrospective audit

Evaluation of serum CA125, HE4 and CA724 and the risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm score in the diagnosis of high-grade serous ovarian cancer

AIM

To develop a new algorithm for the detection of high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC).

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with HGSOC, borderline ovarian tumours (BOTs) or benign ovarian masses (BOMs) were enrolled between February 2019 and December 2020. Patients with BOTs or BOMs were grouped as non-HGSOC. The cases were divided randomly into a training cohort (two-thirds of cases) and a validation cohort (one-third of cases). Logistic regression was used to find risk factors for HGSOC and to create a new algorithm in the training cohort. Receiver operating characteristic curves were used to compare the diagnostic value of tumour biomarkers. Sensitivity and specificity of tumour markers and the new algorithm were calculated in the training cohort and validation cohort.

RESULTS

This study found significant differences in age; BRCA1/2 mutation status; CA125, CA724 and HE4 levels; and Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm score between the two groups.Logistic regression analysis showed that CA125 and BRCA1/2 were risk factors for HGSOC. A new algorithm combining CA125 and BRCA1/2 increased the specificity of CA125 for diagnosis of HGSOC. The new algorithm had sensitivity of 81.08% and specificity of 93.10% in the training cohort.

CONCLUSION

The new algorithm using CA125 and BRCA1/2 helped to distinguish between patients with HGSOC and patients with non-HGSOC.

Selection of Germline Genetic Testing Panels in Patients With Cancer: ASCO Guideline

PURPOSE

To guide use of multigene panels for germline genetic testing for patients with cancer.

METHODS

An ASCO Expert Panel convened to develop recommendations on the basis of a systematic review of guidelines, consensus statements, and studies of germline and somatic genetic testing.

RESULTS

Fifty-two guidelines and consensus statements met eligibility criteria for the primary search; 14 studies were identified for Clinical Question 4.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Patients should have a family history taken and recorded that includes details of cancers in first- and second-degree relatives and the patient's ethnicity. When more than one gene is relevant based on personal and/or family history, multigene panel testing should be offered. When considering what genes to include in the panel, the minimal panel should include the more strongly recommended genes from Table 1 and may include those less strongly recommended. A broader panel may be ordered when the potential benefits are clearly identified, and the potential harms from uncertain results should be mitigated. Patients who meet criteria for germline genetic testing should be offered germline testing regardless of results from tumor testing. Patients who would not normally be offered germline genetic testing based on personal and/or family history criteria but who have a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant identified by tumor testing in a gene listed in Table 2 under the outlined circumstances should be offered germline testing.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/molecular-testing-and-biomarkers-guidelines.

EMQN best practice guidelines for genetic testing in hereditary breast and ovarian cancer

Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer (HBOC) is a genetic condition associated with increased risk of cancers. The past decade has brought about significant changes to hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) diagnostic testing with new treatments, testing methods and strategies, and evolving information on genetic associations. These best practice guidelines have been produced to assist clinical laboratories in effectively addressing the complexities of HBOC testing, while taking into account advancements since the last guidelines were published in 2007. These guidelines summarise cancer risk data from recent studies for the most commonly tested high and moderate risk HBOC genes for laboratories to refer to as a guide. Furthermore, recommendations are provided for somatic and germline testing services with regards to clinical referral, laboratory analyses, variant interpretation, and reporting. The guidelines present recommendations where 'must' is assigned to advocate that the recommendation is essential; and 'should' is assigned to advocate that the recommendation is highly advised but may not be universally applicable. Recommendations are presented in the form of shaded italicised statements throughout the document, and in the form of a table in supplementary materials (Table S4). Finally, for the purposes of encouraging standardisation and aiding implementation of recommendations, example report wording covering the essential points to be included is provided for the most common HBOC referral and reporting scenarios. These guidelines are aimed primarily at genomic scientists working in diagnostic testing laboratories.

Predicting the likelihood of a BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant being somatic by testing only tumour DNA in non-mucinous high-grade epithelial ovarian cancer

AIMS

Clinical guidelines recommend testing both germline and tumour DNA for BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants (PVs) in non-mucinous high-grade epithelial ovarian cancer (NMEOC). In this study, we show that some tumour BRCA1/2 PVs are highly likely to be somatic based on certain clinical and variant characteristics, meaning it may not be necessary to test all NMEOC cases for germline BRCA1/2 PVs.

METHODS

An observational study that included all tumour BRCA1/2 PVs detected in cases of NMEOC in the Northwest of England between July 2017 and February 2022. All tumour BRCA1/2 PVs were compared with PVs recorded in a prospectively gathered pan-cancer germline BRCA1/2 (gBRCA) testing database for the same geographical region (gBRCA1 PVs=910 and gBRCA2 PVs=922). Tumour BRCA1/2 PVs were categorised as common (≥1%), uncommon (<1%) or absent from the germline database.

RESULTS

One hundred and thirteen tumour BRCA1/2 PVs were detected in 111 NMEOC cases. There were 69 germline and 44 somatic variants. The mean age at diagnosis for gBRCA and somatic BRCA1/2 (sBRCA) PVs was 56.9 and 68.5 years, respectively (Student's t-test p<0.0001). All sBRCA PVs were detected in non-familial cases. All tumour BRCA1/2 PVs with a variant allele frequency (VAF) <35% in non-familial cases were somatic variants. Eighty-one per cent of germline-tumour BRCA1/2 PVs were present (common=31, uncommon=25) in the gBRCA testing database, while 89% of somatic-tumour BRCA1/2 PVs were absent (n=39).

CONCLUSIONS

We predict the likelihood of a tumour BRCA1/2 PV being somatic is 99.8% in non-familial cases of NMEOC diagnosed aged ≥75, where the VAF is ≤30% and there is no regional germline commonality.

Homologous recombination deficiency in newly diagnosed FIGO stage III/IV high-grade epithelial ovarian cancer: a multi-national observational study

OBJECTIVE

Olaparib plus bevacizumab maintenance therapy improves survival outcomes in women with newly diagnosed, advanced, high-grade ovarian cancer with a deficiency in homologous recombination. We report data from the first year of routine homologous recombination deficiency testing in the National Health Service (NHS) in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland between April 2021 and April 2022.

METHODS

The Myriad myChoice companion diagnostic was used to test DNA extracted from formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tumor tissue in women with newly diagnosed International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage III/IV high-grade epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer. Tumors with homologous recombination deficiency were those with a BRCA1/2 mutation and/or a Genomic Instability Score (GIS) ≥42. Testing was coordinated by the NHS Genomic Laboratory Hub network.

RESULTS

The myChoice assay was performed on 2829 tumors. Of these, 2474 (87%) and 2178 (77%) successfully underwent BRCA1/2 and GIS testing, respectively. All complete and partial assay failures occurred due to low tumor cellularity and/or low tumor DNA yield. 385 tumors (16%) contained a BRCA1/2 mutation and 814 (37%) had a GIS ≥42. Tumors with a GIS ≥42 were more likely to be BRCA1/2 wild-type (n=510) than BRCA1/2 mutant (n=304). The distribution of GIS was bimodal, with BRCA1/2 mutant tumors having a higher mean score than BRCA1/2 wild-type tumors (61 vs 33, respectively, χ2 test p<0.0001).

CONCLUSION

This is the largest real-world evaluation of homologous recombination deficiency testing in newly diagnosed FIGO stage III/IV high-grade epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer. It is important to select tumor tissue with adequate tumor content and quality to reduce the risk of assay failure. The rapid uptake of testing across England, Wales, and Northern Ireland demonstrates the power of centralized NHS funding, center specialization, and the NHS Genomic Laboratory Hub network.

Is Reflex Germline BRCA1/2 Testing Necessary in Women Diagnosed with Non-Mucinous High-Grade Epithelial Ovarian Cancer Aged 80 Years or Older?

Women diagnosed with non-mucinous high-grade epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) in England are often reflex-tested for germline and tumour BRCA1/2 variants. The value of germline BRCA1/2 testing in women diagnosed aged ≥80 is questionable. We performed an observational study of all women diagnosed with non-mucinous high-grade EOC who underwent germline and tumour BRCA1/2 testing by the North West of England Genomic Laboratory Hub. A subgroup of women also underwent germline testing using a panel of homologous recombination repair (HRR) genes and/or tumour testing for homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) using Myriad's myChoice® companion diagnostic. Seven-hundred-two patients successfully underwent both germline and tumour BRCA1/2 testing. Of these, 48 were diagnosed with non-mucinous high-grade EOC aged ≥80. In this age group, somatic BRCA1/2 pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants (PV/LPVs) were detected nine times more often than germline BRCA1/2 PV/LPVs. The only germline PV reported in a patient aged ≥80 was detected in germline and tumour DNA (BRCA2 c.4478_4481del). No patient aged ≥80 had a germline PV/LPVs in a non-BRCA1/2 HRR gene. Thirty-eight percent of patients aged ≥80 had a tumour positive for HRD. Our data suggest that tumour BRCA1/2 and HRD testing is adequate for patients diagnosed with non-mucinous high-grade EOC aged ≥80, with germline BRCA1/2 testing reserved for women with a tumour BRCA1/2 PV/LPVs.

Prevalence and clinical implications of germline mutations among Jordanian patients with ovarian cancer. The Jordanian exploratory cancer genetics ( Jo‐ECAG ) ovarian study

BACKGROUND

Ovarian cancer is one of the most common gynecological malignancies. Due to the absence of effective screening methods, ovarian cancer is usually diagnosed at late stages. Patients with pathogenic and likely-pathogenic germline variants (PGVs) in BRCA1 or BRCA2 harbor elevated risk of developing both ovarian and breast cancers. Identifying PGVs may help in both cancer prevention and active disease treatment. Worldwide prevalence of PGVs varies and the matter is poorly addressed among Arab patients.

METHODS

Patients with epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube or primary peritoneal cancers were offered the universal 20 or 84-multi-gene panel testing as per standard guidelines. Cascade family screening was also offered to all first and second-degree relatives of PGV positive patients. Genetic testing was done at a referral lab using a next generation sequencing (NGS)-based platform.

RESULTS

During the study period, 152 patients, median age (range): 50 (18-79) years old, were tested. The majority (n = 100, 65.8%) had high-grade serous carcinoma, and 106 patients (69.7%) had metastatic disease at presentation. In total, 38 (25.0%) had PGVs, while 47 (30.9%) others had variants of uncertain significance (VUS). PGVs were mostly in BRCA1 (n = 21, 13.8%) and in BRCA2 (n = 12, 7.9%), while 6 (3.9%) others had PGVs in non-BRCA1/2 genes. PGV rates were significantly higher among 15 patients with a positive family history of ovarian cancer (60.0%, p = .022) and among 52 patients with a positive family history of breast cancer (40.4%, p = .017).

CONCLUSIONS

PGVs are common among Jordanian women with ovarian cancer, and mostly occur in BRCA1/2. Given its clinical impact on disease prevention and precision therapy, universal testing should be routinely offered.

Molecular Management of High-Grade Serous Ovarian Carcinoma

High-grade serous ovarian carcinoma (HGSOC) represents the most common form of epithelial ovarian carcinoma. The absence of specific symptoms leads to late-stage diagnosis, making HGSOC one of the gynecological cancers with the worst prognosis. The cellular origin of HGSOC and the role of reproductive hormones, genetic traits (such as alterations in P53 and DNA-repair mechanisms), chromosomal instability, or dysregulation of crucial signaling pathways have been considered when evaluating prognosis and response to therapy in HGSOC patients. However, the detection of HGSOC is still based on traditional methods such as carbohydrate antigen 125 (CA125) detection and ultrasound, and the combined use of these methods has yet to support significant reductions in overall mortality rates. The current paradigm for HGSOC management has moved towards early diagnosis via the non-invasive detection of molecular markers through liquid biopsies. This review presents an integrated view of the relevant cellular and molecular aspects involved in the etiopathogenesis of HGSOC and brings together studies that consider new horizons for the possible early detection of this gynecological cancer.

Temporal Patterns and Adoption of Germline and Somatic BRCA Testing in Ovarian Cancer

OBJECTIVE

To describe the testing rate, patient characteristics, temporal trends, timing, and results of germline and somatic BRCA testing in patients with ovarian cancer using real-world data.

METHODS

We included a cross-sectional subset of adult patients diagnosed with ovarian cancer between January 1, 2011, and November 30, 2018, who received frontline treatment and were followed for at least 1 year in a real-world database. The primary outcome was receipt of BRCA testing, classified by biosample source as germline (blood or saliva) or somatic (tissue). Lines of therapy (frontline, second line, third line) were derived based on dates of surgery and chemotherapy. Descriptive statistics were analyzed.

RESULTS

Among 2,557 patients, 72.2% (n=1,846) had at least one documented BRCA test. Among tested patients, 62.5% (n=1,154) had only germline testing, 10.6% (n=197) had only somatic testing, and 19.9% (n=368) had both. Most patients had testing before (9.7%, n=276) or during (48.6%, n=1,521) frontline therapy, with 17.6% (n=273) tested during second-line and 12.7% (n=129) tested during third-line therapy. Patients who received BRCA testing, compared with patients without testing, were younger (mean age 63 years vs 66 years, P <.001) and were more likely to be treated at an academic practice (10.4% vs 7.0%, P =.01), with differences by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score ( P <.001), stage of disease ( P <.001), histology ( P <.001), geography ( P <.001), and type of frontline therapy ( P <.001), but no differences based on race or ethnicity. The proportion of patients who received BRCA testing within 1 year of diagnosis increased from 24.6% of patients in 2011 to 75.6% of patients in 2018.

CONCLUSION

In a large cohort of patients with ovarian cancer, significant practice disparities existed in testing for actionable BRCA mutations. Despite increased testing over time, many patients did not receive testing, suggesting missed opportunities to identify patients appropriate for targeted therapy and genetic counseling.

BRCA1/2 in non-mucinous epithelial ovarian cancer: tumour with or without germline testing?

National guidelines recommend testing all cases of non-mucinous epithelial ovarian cancer (NMEOC) for germline (blood) and somatic (tumour) BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants (PVs). We performed paired germline and somatic BRCA1/2 testing in consecutive cases of NMEOC (n = 388) to validate guidelines. Thirty-four somatic BRCA1/2 (sBRCA) PVs (9.7%) were detected in 350 cases with germline BRCA1/2 (gBRCA) wild-type. All sBRCA PVs were detected in non-familial cases. By analysing our regional germline BRCA1/2 database there were 92/1114 (8.3%) gBRCA PVs detected in non-familial cases (only 3% ≥70 years old) and 245/641 (38.2%) in familial cases. Germline non-familial cases were dominated by BRCA2 in older women (8/271 ≥ 70 years old, all BRCA2). The ratio of sBRCA-to-gBRCA was ≤1.0 in women aged <70 years old, compared to 5.2 in women aged ≥70 years old (P = 0.005). The likelihood of missed germline BRCA1/2 PVs (copy-number variants missed on most somatic assays) by testing only tumour DNA was 0.4% in women aged ≥70 years old. We recommend reflex tumour BRCA1/2 testing in all NMEOC cases, and that gBRCA testing is not required for women aged ≥70 years old with no identifiable tumour BRCA1/2 PV and/or family history of breast, ovarian, prostate and/or pancreatic cancer.

Clinical Landscape of PARP Inhibitors in Ovarian Cancer: Molecular Mechanisms and Clues to Overcome Resistance

Simple Summary

Recent development of maintenance therapy using PARP inhibitors in ovarian cancer has led to a significant improvement in survival rates. However, resistance to these inhibitors can occur in patients, causing disease progression or relapse. Consequently, novel treatment strategies are urgently needed to overcome this resistance. This review article focuses on the precise molecular mechanisms by which PARP inhibitors exert their antitumor effects, as well as how they elicit resistance, in order to gain insight into novel therapeutic approaches to overcome PARP inhibitor resistance in ovarian cancer.

Abstract

The survival of patients with advanced or recurrent ovarian cancer has improved tremendously in the past decade, mainly due to the establishment of maintenance therapy with poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors (PARPis) after conservative chemotherapies. Despite their superior efficacy, resistance to PARPis has been reported, and patients with resistance have a much worse prognosis. Therefore, the development of novel treatment strategies to overcome PARPi resistance is urgently needed. The present review article focuses on the molecular mechanisms of how PARPis exert cytotoxic effects on cancer cells through DNA repair processes, especially the genetic background and tumor microenvironment favored by PARPis. Furthermore, currently available information on PARPi resistance mechanisms is introduced and discussed to develop a novel therapeutic approach against them.

The Feasibility of Implementing Mainstream Germline Genetic Testing in Routine Cancer Care-A Systematic Review

Simple Summary

Germline genetic testing for patients with cancer can have important implications for treatment, preventive options, and for family members. In a mainstream genetic testing pathway, pre-test counseling is performed by non-genetic healthcare professionals, thereby making genetic testing more accessible to all patients who might benefit from it. These mainstream genetic testing pathways are being implemented in different hospitals around the world, and for different cancer types. It is important to evaluate how a mainstream genetic testing pathway can be made sustainable and if quality of genetic care is maintained. We show in this systematic review that it is feasible to incorporate a mainstream genetic testing pathway into routine cancer care while maintaining quality of care. A training procedure for non-genetic healthcare professionals and a close collaboration between genetics and other clinical departments are highly recommended to ensure sustainability.

Abstract

Background: Non-genetic healthcare professionals can provide pre-test counseling and order germline genetic tests themselves, which is called mainstream genetic testing. In this systematic review, we determined whether mainstream genetic testing was feasible in daily practice while maintaining quality of genetic care. Methods: PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and PsychINFO were searched for articles describing mainstream genetic testing initiatives in cancer care. Results: Seventeen articles, reporting on 15 studies, met the inclusion criteria. Non-genetic healthcare professionals concluded that mainstream genetic testing was possible within the timeframe of a routine consultation. In 14 studies, non-genetic healthcare professionals completed some form of training about genetics. When referral was coordinated by a genetics team, the majority of patients carrying a pathogenic variant were seen for post-test counseling by genetic healthcare professionals. The number of days between cancer diagnosis and test result disclosure was always lower in the mainstream genetic testing pathway than in the standard genetic testing pathway (e.g., pre-test counseling at genetics department). Conclusions: Mainstream genetic testing seems feasible in daily practice with no insurmountable barriers. A structured pathway with a training procedure is desirable, as well as a close collaboration between genetics and other clinical departments.