Use of comprehensive next-generation sequencing to identify pathogenic germline variants with therapeutic relevance in metastatic breast cancer.

Nicole Margo Grogan,Yi-Mi Wu,Dan R. Robinson,James M. Rae,Norah Lynn Henry,Daniel F. Hayes,Michelle F. Jacobs,Kara J. Milliron,Bailey Hulswit,Lauren E. Hipp,Sofia Merajver,Elena Martinez Stoffel,Arul Chinnaiyan,Erin Frances Cobain

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2021.39.15_suppl.10527

IF: 45.3

2021-05-20

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:10527 Background: Among patients with early-stage breast cancer, approximately 6-10% have a pathogenic germline variant (PGV) conferring inherited cancer predisposition. In contrast, few studies have explored the frequency and types of PGVs identified in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC); therefore, additional data is needed. Methods: From 2011-2020, 278 patients with MBC underwent fresh tumor biopsy and blood sample collection for paired tumor/normal DNA (targeted exome capture with analysis of 1700 genes) and RNA (tumor transcriptome) sequencing through the Michigan Oncology Sequencing (Mi-ONCOSEQ) program. Somatic and germline alterations were annotated and classified according to degree of clinical actionability with results returned to treating oncologists. Retrospective chart review was performed to determine if: 1) a PGV was identified prior to Mi-ONCOSEQ testing, 2) patients met National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guideline criteria for genetic testing on the basis of personal or family cancer history and 3) patients received subsequent therapy informed by a PGV. Results: Forty-eight of the 278 patients (17.3%) had at least one PGV identified, with a total of 50 PGVs identified in this cohort. Only twelve of these PGVs (24%) had been identified prior to Mi-ONCOSEQ testing. The most frequent PGVs identified were in CHEK 2 (n = 9, 18%), MUTYH (n = 6, 12%), BRCA 1 (n = 5, 10%), BRCA2 (n = 5, 10%), ATM (n = 4, 8%) and PALB2 (n = 4, 8%). Somatic loss of heterozygosity events (LOH) occurred in 30 of the 50 cases with PGVs identified (60%). LOH events were observed in 83.3% of BRCA1, BRCA2, ATM and PALB2 PGVs, but were less frequently observed with CHEK2 (33.3%) and MUTYH (66.7%). Two hundred sixteen out of 278 patients (77.7%) in this cohort met NCCN criteria for genetic testing, although six patients with a PGV identified (CHEK2: n = 5; MUTYH: n = 1) did not meet NCCN criteria. Twenty-nine PGVs identified (58%) had potential therapeutic relevance and 11 patients (22.9%) received targeted therapy based on the PGV. Conclusions: The frequency of PGVs identified in this cohort is nearly double the frequency reported for patients with early-stage disease, suggesting that certain PGVs may confer worse prognosis. CHEK2, the most frequently identified PGV, was less likely to have an identifiable LOH event. The direct role of CHEK2 PGVs in tumor pathogenesis is uncertain, but other mechanisms of silencing the wild type allele must be considered. Despite the majority of patients meeting NCCN criteria for genetic testing, those with PGVs in CHEK2 were less reliably identified by this mechanism. The majority of PGVs identified were of potential therapeutic relevance, supporting the recommendation for genetic testing in all patients with MBC.

oncology