Potential pathogenic germline variant reporting from tumor comprehensive genomic profiling complements classic approaches to germline testing

Combining germline, tissue and liquid biopsy analysis by comprehensive genomic profiling to improve the yield of actionable variants in a real-world cancer cohort

BACKGROUND

Comprehensive next-generation sequencing is widely used for precision oncology and precision prevention approaches. We aimed to determine the yield of actionable gene variants, the capacity to uncover hereditary predisposition and liquid biopsy appropriateness instead of, or in addition to, tumor tissue analysis, in a real-world cohort of cancer patients, who may benefit the most from comprehensive genomic profiling.

METHODS

Seventy-eight matched germline/tumor tissue/liquid biopsy DNA and RNA samples were profiled using the Hereditary Cancer Panel (germline) and the TruSight Oncology 500 panel (tumor tissue/cfDNA) from 23 patients consecutively enrolled at our center according to at least one of the following criteria: no available therapeutic options; long responding patients potentially fit for other therapies; rare tumor; suspected hereditary cancer; primary cancer with high metastatic potential; tumor of unknown primary origin. Variants were annotated for OncoKB and AMP/ASCO/CAP classification.

RESULTS

The overall yield of actionable somatic and germline variants was 57% (13/23 patients), and 43.5%, excluding variants previously identified by somatic or germline routine testing. The accuracy of tumor/cfDNA germline-focused analysis was demonstrated by overlapping results of germline testing. Five germline variants in BRCA1, VHL, CHEK1, ATM genes would have been missed without extended genomic profiling. A previously undetected BRAF p.V600E mutation was emblematic of the clinical utility of this approach in a patient with a liver undifferentiated embryonal sarcoma responsive to BRAF/MEK inhibition.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study confirms the clinical relevance of performing extended parallel tumor DNA and cfDNA testing to broaden therapeutic options, to longitudinally monitor cfDNA during patient treatment, and to uncover possible hereditary predisposition following tumor sequencing in patient care.

Incidental pathogenic germline alterations detected through liquid biopsy in patients with solid tumors: prevalence, clinical utility and implications

Liquid biopsy, a minimally invasive approach for detecting tumor biomarkers in blood, has emerged as a leading-edge technique in cancer precision medicine. New evidence has shown that liquid biopsies can incidentally detect pathogenic germline variants (PGVs) associated with cancer predisposition, including in patients with a cancer for which genetic testing is not recommended. The ability to detect these incidental PGV in cancer patients through liquid biopsy raises important questions regarding the management of this information and its clinical implications. This incidental identification of PGVs raises concerns about cancer predisposition and the potential impact on patient management, not only in terms of providing access to treatment based on the tumor molecular profiling, but also the management of revealing genetic predisposition in patients and families. Understanding how to interpret this information is essential to ensure proper decision-making and to optimize cancer treatment and prevention strategies. In this review we provide a comprehensive summary of current evidence of incidental PGVs in cancer predisposition genes identified by liquid biopsy in patients with cancer. We critically review the methodological considerations of liquid biopsy as a tool for germline diagnosis, clinical utility and potential implications for cancer prevention, treatment, and research.

Patient survey on cancer genomic medicine in Japan under the national health insurance system

In Japan, comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) tests have been reimbursed under the national health care system for solid cancer patients who have finished standard treatment. More than 50,000 patients have taken the test since June 2019. We performed a nation-wide questionnaire survey between March 2021 and July 2022. Questionnaires were sent to 80 designated Cancer Genomic Medicine Hospitals. Of the 933 responses received, 370 (39.7%) were web based and 563 (60.3%) were paper based. Most patients (784, 84%) first learned about CGP tests from healthcare professionals, and 775 (83.1%) gave informed consent to their treating physician. At the time of informed consent, they were most worried about test results not leading to novel treatment (536, 57.4%). On a scale of 0-10, 702 respondents (75.2%) felt that the explanations of the test result were easy to understand (7 or higher). Ninety-one patients (9.8%) started their recommended treatment. Many patients could not receive recommended treatment because no approved drugs or clinical trials were available (102/177, 57.6%). Ninety-eight patients (10.5%) did not wish their findings to be disclosed. Overall satisfaction with the CGP test process was high, with 602 respondents (64.5%) giving a score of 7-10. The major reason for choosing 0-6 was that the CGP test result did not lead to new treatment (217/277, 78.3%). In conclusion, satisfaction with the CGP test process was high. Patients and family members need better access to information. More patients need to be treated with genomically matched therapy.