The Future of Parallel Tumor and Germline Genetic Testing: Is There a Role for All Patients With Cancer?

Mainstreaming Cancer Genomic Testing: A Scoping Review of the Acceptability, Efficacy, and Impact

Finite clinical genetics services combined with expanding genomic testing have driven development of mainstreaming models-of-care for genomic testing: specifically genetic counselor embedded (GEM) and upskilled-clinician (UPC) models. To determine feasibility, acceptability, and health economic impact in cancer mainstreaming settings we conducted a scoping review of the literature. A comprehensive PubMed search identified relevant manuscripts, published in English between 2013 and 2023. Of 156 identified articles, 37 proceeded to full review, encompassing five cancer types. In both models-of-care, testing uptake was > 90% and referral/testing rates increased 1.2-6.7-fold. Time from diagnosis to result disclosure decreased 1.5-6-fold and pathogenic variant detection rates were ≥ 10%. GEM model studies evaluated neither cost-effectiveness nor physician/patient outcomes. UPC models were economically viable, primarily through reducing genetics-related appointments. Physicians found the UPC model workload acceptable and reported improvements in knowledge and confidence. Patient distress in the UPC model was low overall and comparable to standard-of-care. Patients' acceptance and satisfaction/decisional satisfaction were high, and continuity-of-care was appreciated. Mainstreaming cancer genomic testing is feasible and beneficial to patients, physicians, and healthcare systems. More studies are needed to capture GEM model impacts and to compare GEM with UPC models. Further detail of allied health and nursing support for the UPC model is also required.

ClinVar: updates to support classifications of both germline and somatic variants

ClinVar (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/clinvar/) is a free, public database of human genetic variants and their relationships to disease, with >3 million variants submitted by >2800 organizations across the world. The database was recently updated to have three types of classifications: germline, oncogenicity and clinical impact for somatic variants. As for germline variants, classifications for somatic variants can be submitted in batches in a file submission or through the submission API; variants can also be submitted and updated one at a time in online submission forms. The ClinVar XML files were redesigned to allow multiple classification types. Both old and new formats of the XML are supported through the end of 2024. Data for somatic classifications were also added to the ClinVar VCF files and to several tab-delimited files. The ClinVar VCV pages were updated to display the three types of classifications, both as it was submitted and as it was aggregated by ClinVar. Clinical testing laboratories and others in the cancer community are invited to share their classifications of somatic variant classifications through ClinVar to provide transparency in genomic testing and improve patient care.

BRCA genetic testing and counseling in breast cancer: how do we meet our patients' needs?

BRCA1 and BRCA2 are tumor suppressor genes that have been linked to inherited susceptibility of breast cancer. Germline BRCA1/2 pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants (gBRCAm) are clinically relevant for treatment selection in breast cancer because they confer sensitivity to poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors. BRCA1/2 mutation status may also impact decisions on other systemic therapies, risk-reducing measures, and choice of surgery. Consequently, demand for gBRCAm testing has increased. Several barriers to genetic testing exist, including limited access to testing facilities, trained counselors, and psychosocial support, as well as the financial burden of testing. Here, we describe current implications of gBRCAm testing for patients with breast cancer, summarize current approaches to gBRCAm testing, provide potential solutions to support wider adoption of mainstreaming testing practices, and consider future directions of testing.

Understanding perceptions of tumor genomic profile testing in Black/African American cancer patients in a qualitative study: the role of medical mistrust, provider communication, and family support

Tumor genomic profiling (TGP) examines genes and somatic mutations specific to a patient's tumor to identify targets for cancer treatments but can also uncover secondary hereditary (germline) mutations. Most patients are unprepared to make complex decisions related to this information. Black/African American (AA) cancer patients are especially at risk because of lower health literacy, higher levels of medical mistrust, and lower awareness and knowledge of genetic testing. But little is known about their TGP attitudes or preferences. Five in-person focus groups were conducted with Black/AA cancer patients (N = 33) from an NCI-designated cancer center and an affiliated oncology unit in an urban safety-net hospital located in Philadelphia. Focus groups explored participants' understanding of TGP, cultural beliefs about genetics, medical mistrust, and how these perceptions informed decision-making. Participants were mostly female (81.8%), and one-third had some college education; mean age was 57 with a SD of 11.35. Of patients, 33.3% reported never having heard of TGP, and 48.5% were not aware of having had TGP as part of their cancer treatment. Qualitative analysis was guided by the principles of applied thematic analysis and yielded five themes: (1) mistrust of medical institutions spurring independent health-information seeking; (2) genetic testing results as both empowering and overwhelming; (3) how provider-patient communication can obviate medical mistrust; (4) how unsupportive patient-family communication undermines interest in secondary-hereditary risk communication; and (5) importance of developing centralized patient support systems outside of treatment decisions. Results improve understanding of how Black/AA patients perceive of TGP and how interventions can be developed to assist with making informed decisions about secondary hereditary results.

Mainstreaming in parallel with ovarian cancer tumor testing to improve genetic testing uptake

OBJECTIVES

Although genetic testing (GT) is universally recommended for patients with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC), rates are low (34%). In 1/2019, we implemented mainstreaming-GT in parallel with tumor testing via MSK-IMPACT within oncology clinics. We sought to determine GT rates pre/post-mainstreaming and patient characteristics associated with GT.

METHODS

Patients with newly diagnosed EOC seen at our institution from 7/1/2015-3/31/2022 were included. Clinical data were abstracted including social determinants of health (SDOH) variables, race/ethnicity, marital status, insurance, language, comorbidities, employment, and Yost index, a measure of socioeconomic status. GT rates were calculated overall and pre-/post-mainstreaming (1/2019). Logistic regression models were fit to identify variables associated with GT.

RESULTS

Of 1742 patients with EOC, 1591 (91%) underwent GT. Rates of GT increased from 87% to 95% after mainstreaming (p < 0.001). Among 151 patients not undergoing GT, major reasons were lack of provider recommendation (n = 76, 50%) and logistical issues (n = 38, 25%) with few declining (n = 14, 9%) or having medical complications preventing GT (n = 7, 4.6%). High-grade serous histology, advanced stage (III/IV), and having a spouse/partner were associated with increased GT uptake (p < 0.01). Among SDOH variables, there were no differences by insurance, Yost score, language, comorbidities, employment, or race/ethnicity. In multivariable models, likelihood of GT increased with mainstreaming, even after adjustment for histology, stage, and marital status (OR 3.77; 95% CI: 2.56-5.66).

CONCLUSIONS

Mainstreaming increased the likelihood of GT in patients with EOC. We found lower testing rates in patients without partners/spouses, non-high-grade serous histology, and early-stage disease, representing potential areas for future interventions.

Pathogenic Germline Variants in BRCA1/2 and p53 Identified by Real-world Comprehensive Cancer Genome Profiling Tests in Asian Patients

Cancer genome profiling (CGP) occasionally identifies pathogenic germline variants (PGV) in cancer susceptibility genes (CSG) as secondary findings. Here, we analyzed the prevalence and clinical characteristics of PGVs based on nationwide real-world data from CGP tests in Japan. We analyzed the genomic information and clinical characteristics of 23,928 patients with solid cancers who underwent either tumor-only (n = 20,189) or paired tumor-normal (n = 3,739) sequencing CGP tests between June 2019 and December 2021 using the comprehensive national database. We assigned clinical significance for all variants and highlighted the prevalence and characteristics of PGVs. Our primary analysis of the tumor-normal sequencing cohort revealed that 152 patients (4.1%) harbored PGVs in 15 CSGs. Among 783 germline variants, 113 were annotated as PGVs, 70 as benign variants, and 600 as variants of uncertain significance. The number of PGVs identified was highest in BRCA1/2, with 56, followed by TP53, with 18. PGVs were the most prevalent in ovarian and peritoneal cancers, including among cancer types common in Asia. In the tumor-only sequencing cohort, of the 5,184 pathogenic somatic variants across 26 CSGs, 784 (15.1%) were extracted according to the European Society for Medical Oncology recommendations for germline-focused tumor analysis. The prevalence of PGVs was similar to that previously reported in Europe and the United States. This is the largest analysis based on real-world tumor-normal sequencing tests in Asia. The more widespread use of the tumor-normal sequencing CGP test could be reasonable for evaluating PGVs.

SIGNIFICANCE

We analyzed real-world data from over 23,000 patients in Japan, revealing 4.1% harbored PGVs, particularly in BRCA1/2 and TP53, in CSGs. It highlights the prevalence of PGVs in Asian populations and supports the broader adoption of tumor-normal sequencing CGP tests for PGV evaluation.

Advancing precision oncology through systematic germline and tumor genetic analysis: The oncogenetic point of view on findings from a prospective multicenter clinical trial of 666 patients

INTRODUCTION

With the emergence of targeted therapies, there is a need to accurately identify more tumor biomarkers. The EXOMA trial was designed to offer tumor and germline exome sequencing (ES) to patients with solid malignant tumors and facing therapeutic failure. As hereditary cancer predispositions could be identified, with genetic counseling and health management implications, a genetic consultation was systematically established. This design needs to be discussed as genetic human resources are limited and indication of theranostic tests will increase.

METHODS

Genetic counseling was conducted within 15 days following inclusion in the study for patients recruited between December 2015 and July 2019. In silico analyses from theranostic ES were limited to 317 genes involved in oncogenesis, from both tumor and blood DNA.

RESULTS

Six hundred and sixty six patients had a genetic consultation before ES. In 65/666 patients, 66 germline pathogenic or likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants were identified in 16 actionable genes and seven non-actionable genes according to French guidelines. 24/65 patients had previously received genetic analysis for diagnostic purposes, and for 17 of them, a P/LP variant had already been identified. Among the 48/65 remaining cases for which the EXOMA protocol revealed a previously unknown P/LP variant, only 19 met the criteria for genetic testing for inherited cancer risk after familial survey. These criteria had not been identified by the oncologist in 10 cases. In 21/65 cases, the variant was considered incidental.

DISCUSSION

In 7.4% of patients, an undiagnosed hereditary genetic predisposition was identified, whether or not related to the clinical presentation, and germline analysis impacted oncological management for only 6.3% of the cohort. This low percentage should be weighed against the burden of systematic genetic consultation and urgent circuits. Information or training tools to form oncologists to the prescription of germline genetic analyses should be explored, as well as information supports and patient preferences.

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.

Diagnostic yield and clinical relevance of expanded genetic testing for cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Genetic testing (GT) for hereditary cancer predisposition is traditionally performed on selected genes based on established guidelines for each cancer type. Recently, expanded GT (eGT) using large hereditary cancer gene panels uncovered hereditary predisposition in a greater proportion of patients than previously anticipated. We sought to define the diagnostic yield of eGT and its clinical relevance in a broad cancer patient population over a 5-year period.

METHODS

A total of 17,523 cancer patients with a broad range of solid tumors, who received eGT at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center between July 2015 to April 2020, were included in the study. The patients were unselected for current GT criteria such as cancer type, age of onset, and/or family history of disease. The diagnostic yield of eGT was determined for each cancer type. For 9187 patients with five common cancer types frequently interrogated for hereditary predisposition (breast, colorectal, ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate cancer), the rate of pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants in genes that have been associated with each cancer type was analyzed. The clinical implications of additional findings in genes not known to be associated with a patients' cancer type were investigated.

RESULTS

16.7% of patients in a broad cancer cohort had P/LP variants in hereditary cancer predisposition genes identified by eGT. The diagnostic yield of eGT in patients with breast, colorectal, ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate cancer was 17.5%, 15.3%, 24.2%, 19.4%, and 15.9%, respectively. Additionally, 8% of the patients with five common cancers had P/LP variants in genes not known to be associated with the patient's current cancer type, with 0.8% of them having such a variant that confers a high risk for another cancer type. Analysis of clinical and family histories revealed that 74% of patients with variants in genes not associated with their current cancer type but which conferred a high risk for another cancer did not meet the current GT criteria for the genes harboring these variants. One or more variants of uncertain significance were identified in 57% of the patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to targeted testing approaches, eGT can increase the yield of detection of hereditary cancer predisposition in patients with a range of tumors, allowing opportunities for enhanced surveillance and intervention. The benefits of performing eGT should be weighed against the added number of VUSs identified with this approach.

An optimized protocol for evaluating pathogenicity of VHL germline variants in patients suspected with von Hippel-Lindau syndrome: Using somatic genome to inform the role of germline variants

The interpretation of hereditary genetic sequencing variants is often limited due to the absence of functional data and other key evidence to assess the role of variants in disease. Cancer genetics is unique, as two sets of genomic information are often available from a cancer patient: somatic and germline. Despite the progress made in the integrated analysis of somatic and germline findings, the assessment of pathogenicity of germline variants in high penetrance genes remains grossly underutilized. Indeed, standard ACMG/AMP guidelines for interpreting germline sequence variants do not address the evidence derived from tumor data in cancer. Previously, we have demonstrated the utility of somatic tumor data as supporting evidence to elucidate the role of germline variants in patients suspected with VHL syndrome and other cancers. We have leveraged the key elements of cancer genetics in these cases: genes with expected high disease penetrance and those with a known biallelic mechanism of tumorigenicity. Here we provide our optimized protocol for evaluating the pathogenicity of germline VHL variants using informative somatic profiling data. This protocol provides details of case selection, assessment of personal and family evidence, somatic tumor profiles, and loss of heterozygosity (LOH) as supporting evidence for the re-evaluation of germline variants.

Management of BRCA Tumour Testing in an Integrated Molecular Tumour Board Multidisciplinary Model

Tumour testing of the BRCA1/2 genes is routinely performed in patients with different cancer histological subtypes. To accurately identify patients with tumour-detected germline pathogenic variants (PVs) is a relevant issue currently under investigation. This study aims at evaluating the performance of the tumour-to-germline diagnostic flowchart model defined at our Institutional Molecular Tumour Board (MTB). Results from tumour BRCA sequencing of 641 consecutive unselected cancer patients were discussed during weekly MTB meetings with the early involvement of clinical geneticists for appropriate referral to genetic counselling. The overall tumour detection rate of BRCA1/2 PVs was 8.7% (56/641), ranging from 24.4% (31/127) in high-grade ovarian cancer to 3.9% (12/304) in tumours not associated with germline BRCA1/2 PVs. Thirty-seven patients with PVs (66%) were evaluated by a clinical geneticist, and in 24 of them (64.9%), germline testing confirmed the presence of the PV in blood. Nine of these patients (37.5%) were not eligible for germline testing according to the criteria in use at our institution. Cascade testing was subsequently performed on 18 relatives. The tumour-to-germline diagnostic pipeline, developed in the framework of our institutional MTB, compared with guideline-based germline testing following genetic counselling, proved to be effective in identifying a higher number of germline BRCA PVs carriers.