Determination of aluminium in human serum by means of flameless atomic absorption technique.

M. Brasche,C. Fuchs

1974-05-01

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Poor compliance with germline testing recommendations in colorectal cancer patients undergoing molecular residual disease testing

Suzanne Schrock-Kelley,Vivienne Souter,Michael J Hall,Youbao Sha,Urmi Sengupta,Adam C ElNaggar,Minetta C Liu,Jeffrey N Weitzel

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43856-024-00608-6

2024-09-30

Abstract:Background: Approximately 15% of colorectal cancers (CRCs) are associated with germline mutations. There is increasing adoption of DNA-based assays for molecular residual disease (MRD) and growing evidence supporting its clinical utility, particularly for CRC by oncologists in the U.S. We assessed the uptake of germline multi-gene panel testing (MGPT) for hereditary cancer in CRC patients receiving MRD analyses in community oncology settings. Methods: This retrospective study included 80 patients receiving care for CRC through community oncology practices who were referred for MRD testing at a commercial laboratory (January-March 2022). Clinical data, including test requisition forms, pathology reports, and clinical notes were reviewed. Documentation of tumor microsatellite instability and/or immunohistochemical (IHC) testing for mismatch repair (MMR) deficiency, age of CRC diagnosis, family history of cancer, and any order or recommendation for MGPT were assessed. Results: Overall, 5/80 (6.3%) patients in the study have documented germline MGPT; 65/80 (81.3%) patients have documented MMR testing of their colorectal tumor. Among the 5 cases with abnormal MMR IHC, 2 have MGPT. Of the 33 patients meeting the 2021 National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) criteria for genetic/familial high-risk assessment, only 2 have MGPT. Conclusions: Our real-world data suggest that many CRC patients receiving MRD testing and meeting NCCN (v. 2021) criteria for germline MGPT may not be receiving evaluation beyond routine MMR status. Process and educational improvements are needed in community health settings to increase access and uptake of germline testing among CRC patients regardless of age at diagnosis or MMR status.
Feasibility and Clinical Utility of Reporting Hereditary Cancer Predisposition Pathogenic Variants Identified in Research Germline Sequencing: A Prospective Interventional Study

Megan L Hutchcraft,Shulin Zhang,Nan Lin,Justine C Pickarski,Elizabeth A Belcher,Sainan Wei,Thèrése Bocklage,Rachel W Miller,John L Villano,Michael J Cavnar,Joseph Kim,Susanne M Arnold,Frederick R Ueland,Jill M Kolesar,Megan L. Hutchcraft,Justine C. Pickarski,Elizabeth A. Belcher,Rachel W. Miller,John L. Villano,Michael J. Cavnar,Susanne M. Arnold,Frederick R. Ueland,Jill M. Kolesar

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/po.23.00266

2024-01-01

JCO Precision Oncology

Abstract:PURPOSE Patients with cancer frequently undergo research-grade germline sequencing but clinically actionable results are not routinely disclosed. The objective of this study is to evaluate the feasibility of reporting clinically relevant secondary findings (SF) identified in germline research sequencing using the institutional molecular tumor board (MTB) and the treating oncology physician. METHODS This prospective, interventional cohort study enrolled Total Cancer Care participants with any cancer diagnosis at a single institution. Patients underwent research-grade germline whole-exome sequencing, with bioinformatic analysis in a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments–certified laboratory to verify pathogenic/likely pathogenic germline variants (PGVs) in any American College of Medical Genomics and Genetics SF v2.0 genes. After a protocol modification in consenting patients, the MTB reported PGVs to treating oncology physicians with recommendations for referral to a licensed genetic counselor and clinical confirmatory testing. RESULTS Of the 781 enrolled participants, 32 (4.1%) harbored cancer predisposition PGVs, 24 (3.1%) were heterozygous carriers of an autosomal recessive cancer predisposition syndrome, and 14 (1.8%) had other hereditary disease PGVs. Guideline-directed testing would have missed 37.5% (12/32) of the inherited cancer predisposition PGVs, which included BRCA1, BRCA2, MSH6, SDHAF2, SDHB, and TP53 variants. Three hundred fifteen participants consented to reporting results; results for all living patients were reported to the clinical team with half referred to a licensed genetic counselor. There was concordance between all research variants identified in patients (n = 9) who underwent clinical confirmatory sequencing. CONCLUSION MTB reporting of research-grade germline sequencing to the clinical oncology team is feasible. Over a third of PGVs identified using a universal testing strategy would have been missed by guideline-based approach, suggesting a role for expanding germline testing.

oncology
Genetic predisposition to myelodysplastic syndrome: Genetic counseling and transplant implications

Yi Liu,Kathleen Calzone,Lisa J McReynolds

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1053/j.seminhematol.2024.09.003

2024-09-22

Abstract:The development of myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) is influenced by various genetic predispositions. Several important genes contribute to disease susceptibility. This paper explores common genetic predisposition genes in MDS, including DDX41, CEBPA, and SAMD9/SAMD9L, which are linked to hereditary conditions presenting diagnostic and clinical challenges. It delves into hereditary conditions that affect platelet production and count, such as RUNX1, ETV6, and ANKRD26, detailing their clinical features and how they contribute to an increased risk of MDS. The discussion extends to additional genetic syndromes like GATA2 deficiency, telomere biology disorders, Fanconi anemia, and Li-Fraumeni syndrome, along with new findings on genes like ERG that offer new insights into disease etiology. The importance of genetic counseling in MDS is underscored, outlining its goals, methods for evaluating family history, risk assessment, and the ethical considerations involved. Furthermore, the role of hematopoietic cell transplantation in managing MDS, particularly in patients with germline syndromes, is reviewed, emphasizing the need for optimal donor selection and personalized treatment approaches. This comprehensive overview illustrates the critical role of genetic factors in MDS and highlights the need for continued research and tailored clinical practices to improve patient outcomes.
Wide Variation in Use and Interpretation of Gene Mutation Profiling Panels Among Health Care Providers of Patients with Myelodysplastic Syndromes (MDS): Results of a Large Web-Based Survey

Alexander B Pine,Nora B Chokr,Maximilian Stahl,David P. Steensma,Mikkael A. Sekeres,Mark R. Litzow,Selina Luger,Richard M. Stone,Peter L Greenberg,Rafael Bejar,Steven D. Gore,Amer M. Zeidan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2018-99-113888

IF: 20.3

2018-11-29

Blood

Abstract:Abstract Background. Gene mutation profiling is increasingly employed for diagnosis, risk stratification, and clinical management in patients with MDS. However, current World Health Organization MDS classification is still based on histologic findings (with the exception of SF3B1 for MDS-RS), and guidelines generally suggest that clinical decisions be guided by clinico-pathologic risk stratification tools such as Revised International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS-R). We sought to study beliefs and patterns of practice with respect to gene mutation profiling among health care providers who manage patients with MDS. Methods. A link to a 23-question web-based survey was emailed to members of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG)-ACRIN Cancer Research Group, Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology (Alliance), and the Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG), and the Cancer Trials Support Unit (CTSU) on 5/1/2018 with 6 subsequent weekly reminders. The Qualtrics survey platform was used to record anonymous responses. We used descriptive statistics to analyze the data. No incentive was provided for responses. Results. Of 371 received responses, 262 were received from providers who did not manage MDS patients or lacked analyzable data and therefore were excluded. Of 109 eligible responses, 108 responders were from institutions representing 31 US states (one respondent was from South America). Median age of respondents was 48 years (range, 33-75); 43 (39%) were women. A third of responders (32%) worked at a university hospital, while 25%, 17%, and 5% worked at a community hospital, private practice, or other settings, respectively. While 37% of participants worked at institutions with guidelines for clinical care of MDS patients, 28% reported that their institutional guidelines recommended MDS-specific gene mutation profiling. Such testing was performed at institutions of 13% participants; institutions of 26% of responders tested a general AML panel that included MDS-specific genes. The total number of respondents whose institutions sent out either an MDS-specific gene panel or a general AML gene panel with MDS-specific genes was similar, 25% and 12%, respectively (Fig. 1). Of those who routinely perform molecular testing, 94% do so at diagnosis, 56% at relapse, 33% during preparation for stem cell transplant, 31% after the failure of hypomethylating agents (HMA), 24% during screening for a clinical trial, and 15% at initial treatment (Fig. 2). MDS gene mutation profiling was felt to be most helpful in diagnosis (rarely 11%; sometimes 49%; often 30%; always 9%), risk stratification (sometimes 31%; often 51%; always 15%), and prognosis (sometimes 31%; often 51%; always 14%); its role was more limited in response assessment (never 12%; rarely 25%; sometimes 44%; often 14%) and to predict responses to HMAs (never 5%; rarely 28%; sometimes 52%, often 14%) (Fig. 3). Various types of evidence were used to stratify MDS risk and prognosis: genetic mutations were used by nearly everyone (95%); 70% relied on morphologic findings, while gene expression/transcriptome profiling was used by 40%. Eighty-four percent of responders reported relying on conventional prognostic models like IPSS-R to identify high-risk patients for whom they would consider intensive treatment options. For this purpose, 62% would also rely on mutation profiling, and 32% would also consider higher frequency of gene mutations. While mutations in the p53 pathway were felt to be helpful in terms of risk stratification and treatment decisions by 70% of responders, 43%, 39%, 31%, 26% 23%, 20%, and 3% considered mutations in spliceosome, DNA methylation, transcription factors, histone modification, signaling, RAS pathway, and cohesin genes, respectively, to be useful as well. Approximately 31% of responders were not certain as to which mutations would affect risk stratification and management choices and said they needed to review literature. The respondents also cited multiple limitations to wider clinical use of MDS gene mutation profiling (Fig. 4). Conclusions. Our survey demonstrates widespread use of gene mutation profiling in the management of patients with MDS, but also reveals substantial variability in beliefs, practices, testing logistics, and interpretation of molecular profiling. Our findings emphasize the need for high-quality data to develop consensus evidence-based guidelines for gene profiling of MDS patients. Disclosures Sekeres: Opsona: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Opsona: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Bejar:AbbVie/Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Foundation Medicine: Consultancy; Astex/Otsuka: Consultancy, Honoraria; Modus Outcomes: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Genoptix: Consultancy. Gore:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Zeidan:Ariad: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy; Incyte: Employment; Celgene: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy.

hematology
Diagnosis and Treatment of Myelodysplastic Syndrome in the Era of Genetic Testing

Junshik Hong

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3904/kjm.2024.99.1.11

2024-02-01

Abstract:Myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) is a heterogeneous disorder with diverse prognoses influenced by cytopenias, genetic variants, and myeloblast proportions in the bone marrow. Accurate prognosis prediction and tailored treatment plans are essential. The International Prognostic Scoring System-Molecular (IPSS-M), which additionally reflects the impact of MDS-related genetic mutations to the clinical and laboratory information, is anticipated to offer superior prognostic accuracy compared to existing systems like the Revised International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS-R). Despite its statistical complexity, its web-based calculation and ease of discussing results with patients using intuitive data sets provide notable advantages. Progress in MDS treatment, exemplified by effective anemia correction with an erythropoiesis-maturation agent in SF3B1 -mutated cases and efforts to refine poor prognoses in TP53 -mutated cases, reflects the evolving landscape of genetic-based interventions in MDS. Advancements in genetic diagnostic technology, combined with enhanced knowledge of the bone marrow niche, are anticipated to lead to significant improvement in MDS treatment outcomes in the future.
Development and Evaluation of the Clinical Utility of a Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) Tool for Myeloid Disorders

Angela Hamblin,Adam Burns,Christopher Tham,Ruth Clifford,Pauline Robbe,Adele Timbs,Joanne Mason,Helene Dreau,Andreas Weller,Puthen Jithesh,Olivia Fox,Melody Tabiner,Adam Mead,Andrew Peniket,Paresh Vyas,Shirley Henderson,Anna Schuh

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1182/blood.v124.21.2373.2373

IF: 20.3

2014-12-06

Blood

Abstract:Abstract Background Historically diagnosis and prognosis of myeloid disorders including acute myeloid leukemia (AML) have been determined using a combination of morphology, immunophenotype, cytogenetic and more recently single gene, if not single mutation, analysis. The introduction of NGS technology has resulted in an explosion in the quantity of mutation data available. However, the feasibility and utility of NGS technology with regards to decision-making in routine clinical practice of myeloid disorders is currently unknown. We therefore developed an advanced NGS tool for simultaneous assessment of multiple myeloid candidate genes from low amounts of input DNA and present clinical utility analysis below. Methods We designed a targeted resequencing assay using a TruSeq Custom Amplicon panel with the MiSeq platform (both Illumina) consisting of 341 amplicons (~56 kb) designed around exons of genes frequently mutated in myeloid malignancies (ASXL1, ATRX, CBL, CBLB, CBLC, CEBPA, CSF3R, DNMT3a, ETV6, EZH2, FLT3, HRAS, IDH1, IDH2, JAK2, KIT, KRAS, MPL, NPM1, NRAS, PDGFRA, PHF6, PTEN, RUNX1, SETBP1, SF3B1, SRSF2, TET2, TP53, U2AF1, WT1 & ZRSR2). Filtering, variant calling and annotation were performed using Basespace and Variant Studio (Illumina) with additional indel detection achieved using Pindel. A cohort of samples previously characterised with conventional techniques was used for validation and the lower limit of detection established using qPCR. Post-validation, DNA from 152 diagnostic blood or bone marrow samples from patients with confirmed or suspected myeloid disorders; both AML (n=46) and disorders with the potential to transform to AML i.e. myelodysplasia (confirmed n=54, suspected n=10) and myeloproliferative neoplasms (n=42), were analysed using this assay. To gather clinical utility data we developed a reporting algorithm to feed back information to clinicians; only those variants with a variant allele frequency (VAF) of >10% and described as acquired in publically available databases were reported with the exception of novel mutations predicted to result in a truncated protein. Further utility data was obtained using published mutation algorithms to determine the proportion of patients in whom mutation data altered prognosis. Results In the validation cohort, initial concordance for detection of clinically significant mutations was 88% rising to 100% once Pindel was used to identify FLT3 ITDs. The lower limit of detection was 3% VAF, and mean amplicon coverage was 390 reads. Using our reporting algorithm 66% of patients in the post-validation cohort had a suspected pathogenic mutation relevant to a myeloid disorder, rising to 74% in patients with confirmed diagnoses. The median number of reported variants per sample for all diagnoses was one (range 0-6). When mutation data for patients with AML with intermediate risk cytogenetics was analysed using the algorithm of Patel et al (N Engl J Med. 2012;366:1079-1089), 4/22 (18%) moved into another risk category. A further two patients had double CEBPA mutations, improving their prognosis. Identification of complex mutations in KIT exon 8 in 2/6 patients with core binding factor AML resulted in more intensive MRD monitoring due to the increased risk of relapse. Interpretation of mutation data for patients with confirmed myelodysplasia using the work of Bejar et al (N Engl J Med. 2011;364:2496-2506) revealed 13/54 (24%) had a high risk mutation independently associated with poor overall survival. 2/8 (25%) patients with chronic myelomonocytic leukemia and 1/12 (8.3%) patients with primary myelofibrosis had high risk ASXL1 exon 12 mutations, independently associated with a poor prognosis. Among suspected diagnoses confirmatory mutations were found in 2/19 (11%), while the absence of mutations reduced the probability of myeloid disease in 11/19 (58%), in some cases sparing elderly patients invasive bone marrow sampling. A further 20 patients had clinically relevant mutations. Conclusions The NGS Myeloid Gene Panel provided extra information to clinicians in 57/152 patients (38%) helping inform diagnosis, individualize disease monitoring schedules and support treatment decisions. The targeted panel approach requires rigorous validation and standardisation in particular of bio-informatics pipelines, but can be adapted to incorporate new genes as their relevance is described and will become central to treatment decisions. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

hematology
Clinical Utility of Molecular Tumor Board Review for Identification of Possible Germline Pathogenic Variants on Tumor Next-Generation Sequencing Reports

Taylor A Rives,James Collard,Ning Li,Donglin Yan,Charles S Dietrich,Rachel W Miller,Frederick R Ueland,Justine Pickarski,Jill M Kolesar

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/PO.24.00301

Abstract:Purpose: Tumor next-generation sequencing (NGS) testing identifies possible germline pathogenic variants (PGPVs), creating a dilemma for appropriate recognition, triage, and management. The objective of this study was to determine the clinical utility of an institutional molecular tumor board (MTB) in assessing tumor NGS reports for PGPVs. Methods: Our institutional MTB reviews all NGS reports to provide treatment and further testing recommendations, including genetic counseling referral and consideration of genetic testing (GC/GT). We studied the patients reviewed by the MTB who were recommended for GC/GT to determine the frequency of referral to a GC, germline test completion, rate of pathogenic germline variants (PGVs), factors related to PGVs, and germline conversion rate (GCR). Results: Of the 2,355 patients reviewed by the MTB during the study period, 609 (25.9%) had a recommendation for GC/GT. Of the 609 with a GC/GT recommendation, only 181 (29.7%) were referred for GC/GT by their treating physicians, and only 107 (17.6%) completed GT. Of the 107 patients completing GT, 29 (26%) had a confirmed PGV. The only factors significantly associated with PGVs were testing due to a PGPV and higher mean variant allele fraction on the tumor NGS. Only 40 patients with a GC/GT recommendation (14.3%) due to a PGPV completed GT; however, the GCR was 42.5% (n = 17/40). Conclusion: The MTB review of PGPV is clinically valuable, identifying PGPV in 12% of patients undergoing tumor NGS and a GCR of 42.5%. Rates of GC/GT completion were relatively low due to under-referral by treating physicians. Given the high GCR, the authors encourage institutional algorithms to help increase GC/GT rates for patients found to have PGPV following tumor NGS testing.
Challenges in patient-centered germline testing delivery for veterans with advanced prostate cancer (APC).

Daniel H Kwon,Marissa McPhaul,Eliza Hearst,Saffanat Sumra,Carling Jade Ursem,Evan Justin Walker,Maren Theresa Scheuner,Sunny Wang,Rahul Raj Aggarwal,Franklin W. Huang,Jeffrey Belkora

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2024.42.4_suppl.71

IF: 45.3

2024-02-01

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:71 Background: In a quest to tailor care to tumor biology, oncologists now offer germline testing to all patients with APC. We explored the degree to which germline testing decisions reflect patient preferences about potential benefits and harms discussed by oncologists. Methods: We conducted a prospective qualitative study of consecutive patients with APC who were offered germline testing at an oncology visit at the San Francisco VA. We audio-recorded visits and conducted semi-structured interviews using a theory-informed guide with patients after their visit to understand their decision-making process for germline testing. We analyzed the interviews using the Critical Incident Technique to identify positive or negative deviations from well-informed, preference-based decisions. We also reviewed consent documentation in the electronic health record. Results: Of 61 patients approached, 30 completed interviews after their germline testing discussion. Mean age was 75y; 19 (63%) were White, 9 (30%) Black, and 2 (6%) Other race; and 13 (43%) were service-connected for APC. Twenty-six (87%) patients consented to germline testing; the primary reasons were altruistic (to help family and contribute to knowledge). Four patients (13%) declined testing, all primarily due to the fear of potential loss or reduction of service-connected benefits. All four patients reported they would reconsider testing if assured that these benefits would be protected regardless of test results. Of the four patients, two had initially consented to testing with their oncologist but later changed their minds and did not notify anyone. The two patients received germline testing when they underwent PSA testing, but they were not aware that they had germline testing performed. Both had negative test results, and they therefore did not experience threats to their service-connected benefits. Conclusions: Some Veterans with service-connected benefits for APC decline germline testing due to the fear of potential loss or reduction of these benefits, thereby foregoing potential treatment benefits. An advisory board is working with the Veterans Benefits Administration to protect service-connected benefits for these Veterans. In addition, a few Veterans may agree to germline testing with their oncologist, but then change their minds due to concerns surrounding service-connected benefits. From a quality improvement perspective, the experiences of the patients in this study who changed their minds counts as a near-miss. Although uptake of germline testing was high in this cohort, current workflows may need to be addressed to account for a change of heart, and further research is needed to understand root causes and identify possible remedies of the near-misses. Overall, our findings illustrate the importance of informed consent for germline testing to ensure that results are desired and valued by both oncologist and patient.

oncology
Evaluation of implementation of risk management guidelines for carriers of pathogenic variants in mismatch repair genes: a nationwide audit of familial cancer clinics

B Meiser,R Kaur,J Kirk,A Morrow,M Peate,W K T Wong,E McPike,E Cops,C Dowson,R Austin,M Fine,L Thrupp,R Ward,F Macrae,J E Hiller,A H Trainer,G Mitchell,ICCon Audit Study Collaborative Group,R Susman,N Pachter,A Goodwin,P James,L Mascarenhas,C Morton,S Shanley,M A Young,L Andrews,E A Morrow,K Tucker,G Lindeman,M Field,M Monnik,N Poplawski,M Delatycki,T John,M Harris,R Kerr,B Vora

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10689-020-00183-4

Abstract:Introduction: This nationwide study assessed the impact of Lynch syndrome-related risk management guidelines on clinicians' recommendations of risk management strategies to carriers of pathogenic variants in mismatch repair genes and the extent to which carriers took up strategies in concordance with guidelines. Materials and methods: Clinic files of 464 carriers (with and without colorectal cancer) were audited for carriers who received their genetic testing results in July 2008-July 2009 (i.e. before guideline release), July 2010-July 2011 and July 2012-July 2013 (both after guideline release) at 12 familial cancer clinics (FCCs) to ascertain the extent to which carriers were informed about risk management in accordance with guidelines. All carriers captured by the audit were invited to participate in interviews; 215 were interviewed to assess adherence to recommended risk management guidelines. Results: The rates of documentation in clinic files increased significantly from pre- to post-guideline for only two out of eight risk management strategies. The strategies with the highest compliance of carriers post-guidelines were: uptake of one or two-yearly colonoscopy (87%), followed by hysterectomy to prevent endometrial cancer (68%), aspirin as risk-reducing medication (67%) and risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (63%). Interrater reliability check for all guidelines showed excellent agreement (k statistics = 0.89). Conclusion: These results indicate that there is scope to further increase provision of advice at FCCs to ensure that all carriers receive recommendations about evidence-based risk management. A multi-pronged behaviour change and implementation science approach tailored to specific barriers is likely to be needed to achieve optimal clinician behaviours and outcomes for carriers.
Implementation of Germline Testing for Prostate Cancer: Philadelphia Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2019

Veda N Giri,Karen E Knudsen,William K Kelly,Heather H Cheng,Kathleen A Cooney,Michael S Cookson,William Dahut,Scott Weissman,Howard R Soule,Daniel P Petrylak,Adam P Dicker,Saud H AlDubayan,Amanda E Toland,Colin C Pritchard,Curtis A Pettaway,Mary B Daly,James L Mohler,J Kellogg Parsons,Peter R Carroll,Robert Pilarski,Amie Blanco,Ashley Woodson,Alanna Rahm,Mary-Ellen Taplin,Thomas J Polascik,Brian T Helfand,Colette Hyatt,Alicia K Morgans,Felix Feng,Michael Mullane,Jacqueline Powers,Raoul Concepcion,Daniel W Lin,Richard Wender,James Ryan Mark,Anthony Costello,Arthur L Burnett,Oliver Sartor,William B Isaacs,Jianfeng Xu,Jeffrey Weitzel,Gerald L Andriole,Himisha Beltran,Alberto Briganti,Lindsey Byrne,Anne Calvaresi,Thenappan Chandrasekar,David Y T Chen,Robert B Den,Albert Dobi,E David Crawford,James Eastham,Scott Eggener,Matthew L Freedman,Marc Garnick,Patrick T Gomella,Nathan Handley,Mark D Hurwitz,Joseph Izes,R Jeffrey Karnes,Costas Lallas,Lucia Languino,Stacy Loeb,Ana Maria Lopez,Kevin R Loughlin,Grace Lu-Yao,S Bruce Malkowicz,Mark Mann,Patrick Mille,Martin M Miner,Todd Morgan,Jose Moreno,Lorelei Mucci,Ronald E Myers,Sarah M Nielsen,Brock O'Neil,Wayne Pinover,Peter Pinto,Wendy Poage,Ganesh V Raj,Timothy R Rebbeck,Charles Ryan,Howard Sandler,Matthew Schiewer,E Michael D Scott,Brittany Szymaniak,William Tester,Edouard J Trabulsi,Neha Vapiwala,Evan Y Yu,Charnita Zeigler-Johnson,Leonard G Gomella,Veda N. Giri,Karen E. Knudsen,William K. Kelly,Heather H. Cheng,Kathleen A. Cooney,Michael S. Cookson,Howard R. Soule,Daniel P. Petrylak,Adam P. Dicker,Saud H. AlDubayan,Amanda E. Toland,Colin C. Pritchard,Curtis A. Pettaway,Mary B. Daly,James L. Mohler,J. Kellogg Parsons,Peter R. Carroll,Thomas J. Polascik,Brian T. Helfand,Alicia K. Morgans,Daniel W. Lin,Arthur L. Burnett,William B. Isaacs,Gerald L. Andriole,Lyndsey Byrne,David Y. T. Chen,Robert B. Den,E. David Crawford,Matthew L. Freedman,Partrick T. Gomella,Mark D. Hurwitz,R. Jeffrey Karnes,Kevin R. Loughlin,S. Bruce Malkowicz,Martin M. Miner,Ronald E. Myers,Sarah M. Nielsen,Ganesh V. Raj,Timothy R. Rebbeck,E. Michael D. Scott,Edouard J. Trabulsi,Evan Y. Yu,Leonard G. Gomella

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.20.00046

IF: 45.3

2020-06-11

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:PURPOSE Germline testing (GT) is a central feature of prostate cancer (PCA) treatment, management, and hereditary cancer assessment. Critical needs include optimized multigene testing strategies that incorporate evolving genetic data, consistency in GT indications and management, and alternate genetic evaluation models that address the rising demand for genetic services. METHODS A multidisciplinary consensus conference that included experts, stakeholders, and national organization leaders was convened in response to current practice challenges and to develop a genetic implementation framework. Evidence review informed questions using the modified Delphi model. The final framework included criteria with strong (> 75%) agreement (Recommend) or moderate (50% to 74%) agreement (Consider). RESULTS Large germline panels and somatic testing were recommended for metastatic PCA. Reflex testing—initial testing of priority genes followed by expanded testing—was suggested for multiple scenarios. Metastatic disease or family history suggestive of hereditary PCA was recommended for GT. Additional family history and pathologic criteria garnered moderate consensus. Priority genes to test for metastatic disease treatment included BRCA2, BRCA1, and mismatch repair genes, with broader testing, such as ATM , for clinical trial eligibility. BRCA2 was recommended for active surveillance discussions. Screening starting at age 40 years or 10 years before the youngest PCA diagnosis in a family was recommended for BRCA2 carriers, with consideration in HOXB13, BRCA1, ATM , and mismatch repair carriers. Collaborative (point-of-care) evaluation models between health care and genetic providers was endorsed to address the genetic counseling shortage. The genetic evaluation framework included optimal pretest informed consent, post-test discussion, cascade testing, and technology-based approaches. CONCLUSION This multidisciplinary, consensus-driven PCA genetic implementation framework provides novel guidance to clinicians and patients tailored to the precision era. Multiple research, education, and policy needs remain of importance.

oncology
Retrospective review of compliance with guideline-directed germline testing in microsatellite instability-high colorectal cancer treated at the Veterans Health Administration.

Karly Williams Silva,Stacey A. Cohen,M. Carmen Frias Kletecka,George Ioannou,Deniz Aslan,Daniel Jacob Becker,Avi Kenny,Robert Bruce Montgomery

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2024.42.3_suppl.86

IF: 45.3

2024-01-20

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:86 Background: Lynch syndrome (LS) is an autosomal dominant inherited cancer syndrome that confers an increased risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). As clinical and history features under-recognize LS cases (3-5% of CRC), universal screening of CRCs for LS is recommended. Patients whose CRCs are mismatch repair protein deficient (dMMR) and/or microsatellite instability high (MSI-H) are recommended to have subsequent genetics evaluation to screen for germline mutations. Confirmed LS changes cancer surveillance recommendations for affected patients and their relatives. Within Veterans Health Administration (VHA), GT is ordered by genetic counselors at genomic medicine telehealth centers (GMTC), after initial consultation. We aim to quantify rates at which CRC patients treated at the VHA complete germline testing (GT) when indicated. Methods: The electronic health records (EHRs) of VHA patients with known dMMR/MSI-H CRC were reviewed. Cases were extracted from both Veterans Affairs (VA) Puget Sound and referral VA MSI testing laboratories. Surgical pathology reports and clinical documentation were reviewed in Joint Longitudinal Viewer (JLV) to determine if GT was indicated and reason for non-testing, if not performed. Patients with known LS prior to development of CRC were excluded, and patients with dMMR in MLH1 or MSI-H with concurrent BRAFV600 mutation and/or MLH1 hypermethylation were considered to have sporadic CRC. Results: Of 110 patients with abnormal tumor LS screening; 39 (36%) patients’ tumor tissue underwent IHC for dMMR, 16 (14%) underwent PCR for MSI, and 55 (50%) had both. 45 (41%) patients were classified as somatic MSI-H. 65 (59%) patients met criteria for referral for GMTC and GT. Of these 65, 49 ultimately did not undergo GT and 16 did, which confirmed 4 cases of LS and revealed 1 variant of uncertain significance in the MLH1 gene. Reasons for non-testing were: 7 (14%) declined all cancer testing and treatment after CRC diagnosis or were lost to follow-up/declined establishment of cancer care, 3 (6%) declined referral to GMTC, 14 (29%) accepted referral to GMTC but never had consultation, 7 (14%) accepted referral to GMTC but declined GT when offered, and 18 (37%) were never offered GMTC referral or GT. Conclusions: A majority of dMMR/MSI-H cases with an indication for GT were referred for genetic counseling, but only a small subset completed testing. This analysis identified multiple areas for improvement, including a lack of recognition by providers for the need for GT, and lack of completion of testing by patients at multiple levels. Further evaluation of VHA-specific barriers is needed to improve the quality of delivered care.

oncology
Validation of a guidelines-based digital tool to assess the need for germline cancer genetic testing

Callan D. Russell,Ashley V. Daley,Durand R. Van Arnem,Andi V. Hila,Kiley J. Johnson,Jill N. Davies,Hanah S. Cytron,Kaylene J. Ready,Cary M. Armstrong,Mark E. Sylvester,Colleen A. Caleshu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13053-024-00298-0

2024-11-09

Hereditary Cancer in Clinical Practice

Abstract:Efficient and scalable solutions are needed to identify patients who qualify for germline cancer genetic testing. We evaluated the clinical validity of a brief, patient-administered hereditary cancer risk assessment digital tool programmed to assess if patients meet criteria for germline genetic testing, based on personal and family history, and in line with national guidelines.

oncology
Cancer Predisposition Genetic Testing Among Children with Hematologic Malignancies

Haley Newman,Mary Egan Clark,Suzanne P MacFarland,Garrett M. Brodeur,Stephen P Hunger,Timothy S Olson,Jinhua Wu,Jeffrey Schubert,Netta Golenberg,Maha Patel,Elizabeth Denenberg,Elizabeth Fanning,Jiani Chen,Tamara Luke,Daniel Gallo,Kajia Cao,Weixian Fu,Zhiqian Fan,Minjie Luo,Lea Surrey,Gerald Wertheim,Marilyn M. Li,Yiming Zhong

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2023-180008

IF: 20.3

2023-11-28

Blood

Abstract:Introduction: There is growing recognition of germline cancer predisposition syndromes (CPS) that increase risk of hematologic malignancies including leukemias, lymphomas, bone marrow failure syndromes and myeloproliferative diseases. Somatic (tumor) testing can identify potential germline variants based on multiple factors including variant allele fraction, sequence characteristics, and other findings; however, subsequent germline testing is required to characterize the lesion. Paired tumor and germline testing (T/N testing) is more accurate to diagnose CPS and may mitigate loss to follow-up, reduce time to CPS diagnosis, and possibly alleviate unnecessary anxiety due to suspected but ultimately disproved germline conditions. Previously, our center performed tumor-only diagnostic testing for patients with newly diagnosed hematologic malignancies. In 2020 we transitioned to paired T/N testing for all new hematologic malignancy diagnoses with patient/caregiver consent. Here we report the frequency of CPS diagnoses suggested by tumor-only testing and subsequently confirmed with germline testing, as well as CPS diagnoses identified from the outset by T/N testing. Methods: Data was automatically abstracted from the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) Diagnostic Genomics Database (FileMaker and Nexus) for 1057 pediatric, adolescent, and young adult patients who underwent testing with the CHOP Comprehensive Hematologic Malignancy panel between 2016 and 2023. This panel interrogates 117 genes for single nucleotide variants, insertions, deletions, and copy number variants. Of those tested, 932 patients underwent tumor-only testing, and 125 patients underwent paired T/N testing. Characteristics of patients with possible pre-established genetic syndromes (e.g. Trisomy 21) were cross-checked via manual chart review. Results: Schematic representation of patient testing is summarized in Figure 1. Among 932 patients who underwent tumor-only testing, 98 were identified to have potential or previously established germline pathogenic variants. Of these, 9 had known genetic syndromes and 8 had non-cancer related genetic diagnoses (e.g. Usher syndrome). Of the 81 patients with a suspected CPS, 26 were referred from an outside hospital with unavailable follow-up data. Among suspected germline patients from our center (n=55), 34 (62%) did not undergo confirmatory testing. Of the 21 (38%) who underwent confirmatory testing, 2 (10%) were diagnosed with a CPS. For patients with T/N testing, 16 of 125 (7%) were identified to have germline conditions; 8 were pre-established diagnoses and 4 were non-cancer related genetic diagnoses. Thus, 4 (3%) of patients with T/N testing were newly diagnosed with a CPS. New CPS diagnoses included: ETV6 thrombocytopenia and leukemia predisposition syndrome, CBL syndrome, GATA2 MDS/AML predisposition syndrome, Noonan syndrome, and CEBPA AML predisposition syndrome. Conclusion: At our center, 62% of patients with suspected germline conditions on tumor-only testing had no follow up testing documented in the available medical record. These data suggest that paired T/N testing at the time of hematologic malignancy diagnosis assists in mitigating loss-to-follow up for patients with possible CPS. Additionally, T/N testing may streamline result interpretation, reduce time to diagnosis, aid in treatment decisions, and guide cascade testing for potentially affected family members. When possible, genetic testing decisions and results should be discussed with a trained genetic counselor. Over time, increasing utilization of paired T/N testing may also enhance understanding of CPS-associated genes that increase risk of hematologic malignancies.

hematology
Germline Predisposition to Hematopoietic Malignancies: An Overview

Yogameenakshi Haribabu,Emma Bhote and Lucy A. Godley

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-cancerbio-062822-112257

2024-06-13

Annual Review of Cancer Biology

Abstract:Deleterious germline variants are now recognized as common drivers of hematopoietic malignancies (HMs) and bone marrow failure syndromes. With the increasing use of personalized medicine and the application of tumor-based profiling via next-generation sequencing, diagnosis of HM predisposition occurs with increasing frequency. Although deleterious germline variants can be readily identified by comprehensive clinical testing, numerous barriers exist for many clinicians. Observations regarding particular germline predisposition disorders challenge widely held assumptions about these conditions. Here, we review approaches to germline genetic testing, highlighting key points in a typical patient's course that present challenges for testing and interpreting results. Increasing awareness by health care providers of these conditions and improvements in testing platforms are crucial for enabling a proactive approach to tailoring a suitable treatment plan and surveillance program for the patient and their family members.

oncology
Therapeutic Implications of Germline Testing in Patients With Advanced Cancers

Zsofia K Stadler,Anna Maio,Debyani Chakravarty,Yelena Kemel,Margaret Sheehan,Erin Salo-Mullen,Kaitlyn Tkachuk,Christopher J Fong,Bastien Nguyen,Amanda Erakky,Karen Cadoo,Ying Liu,Maria I Carlo,Alicia Latham,Hongxin Zhang,Ritika Kundra,Shaleigh Smith,Jesse Galle,Carol Aghajanian,Nadeem Abu-Rustum,Anna Varghese,Eileen M O'Reilly,Michael Morris,Wassim Abida,Michael Walsh,Alexander Drilon,Gowtham Jayakumaran,Ahmet Zehir,Marc Ladanyi,Ozge Ceyhan-Birsoy,David B Solit,Nikolaus Schultz,Michael F Berger,Diana Mandelker,Luis A Diaz Jr,Kenneth Offit,Mark E Robson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.20.03661

2021-08-20

Abstract:Purpose: Tumor mutational profiling is increasingly performed in patients with advanced cancer. We determined the extent to which germline mutation profiling guides therapy selection in patients with advanced cancer. Methods: Patients with cancer undergoing tumor genomic profiling were prospectively consented for germline cancer predisposition gene analysis (2015-2019). In patients harboring germline likely pathogenic or pathogenic (LP/P) alterations, therapeutic actionability was classified using a precision oncology knowledge base. Patients with metastatic or recurrent cancer receiving germline genotype-directed therapy were determined. Results: Among 11,947 patients across > 50 malignancies, 17% (n = 2,037) harbored a germline LP/P variant. By oncology knowledge base classification, 9% (n = 1042) had an LP/P variant in a gene with therapeutic implications (4% level 1; 4% level 3B; < 1% level 4). BRCA1/2 variants accounted for 42% of therapeutically actionable findings, followed by CHEK2 (13%), ATM (12%), mismatch repair genes (11%), and PALB2 (5%). When limited to the 9,079 patients with metastatic or recurrent cancer, 8% (n = 710) harbored level 1 or 3B genetic findings and 3.2% (n = 289) received germline genotype-directed therapy. Germline genotype-directed therapy was received by 61% and 18% of metastatic cancer patients with level 1 and level 3B findings, respectively, and by 54% of BRCA1/2, 75% of mismatch repair, 43% of PALB2, 35% of RAD51C/D, 24% of BRIP1, and 19% of ATM carriers. Of BRCA1/2 patients receiving a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor, 45% (84 of 188) had tumors other than breast or ovarian cancer, wherein the drug, at time of delivery, was delivered in an investigational setting. Conclusion: In a pan-cancer analysis, 8% of patients with advanced cancer harbored a germline variant with therapeutic actionability with 40% of these patients receiving germline genotype-directed treatment. Germline sequence analysis is additive to tumor sequence analysis for therapy selection and should be considered for all patients with advanced cancer.
Abstract 6375: Genetic testing station increases access to germline genetic testing

Camille Hamilton,Mariana Niell Swiller,Franceska Bhansali,Alyssa Hoover,Stephanie Bottomley,Marisa Lewis,Bianca Russell,Julian A. Martinez,Beth Karlan,Noah Federman,Vivian Y. Chang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7445.am2024-6375

IF: 11.2

2024-03-22

Cancer Research

Abstract:Abstract Despite evidence of clear benefit, genetic testing of pediatric oncology patients for germline variants remains rare due to a variety of factors, including insurance/financial barriers, limited knowledge about genetic testing, and competing interests for time and resources. Limited access to genetic testing, pre-test counseling and multidisciplinary care have been shown to disproportionately affect patients with limited resources. This represents a critical unmet need in pediatric oncology. Genetic testing station (GTS) is a pre-test counseling video tool that reviews what genetic testing is, why it might be indicated, and explains potential results. Similar video tools have been successfully used in other settings to increase rates of genetic testing, but there are no published reports on the effectiveness of a video education intervention to increase genetic testing in pediatric oncology patients. To test the effectiveness of GTS on genetic testing knowledge and feelings about genetic testing compared to in-person counseling, we use 5 previously validated tools pre- and post-intervention. The initial surveys measure genetic testing knowledge, decisional conflict, healthy literacy, evaluation of GTS and demographics. If participants complete genetic testing, we use the MICRA to assess the impact on their cancer risk assessment. Our GTS arm is recruited from UCLA Pediatric Sarcoma patients, and the in-person counseling arm is recruited from the UCLA Cancer Predisposition clinic. We have recruited 28 participants in the GTS arm and seven in the in-person counseling arm, of which 10 are patients over 18 years old, two are patients between 12-17 years old, and 23 are parents. In our GTS arm, there are 20 female and eight male participants. A majority identify as white or Latino. For the in-person counseling arm, there are four male and three female participants who identify as white, Middle Eastern, or Latino. A similar percentage score with high health literacy, 68% in the GTS arm and 71% for the in-person counseling arm. The majority of patients have no decisional conflict pre- or post-intervention for the GTS group, while the in-person counseling arm shows high initial decision conflict that is fully resolved with counseling. There is a statistically significant increase in genetic testing knowledge for five out of 10 questions comparing pre- and post-GTS. For GTS participants who have completed genetic testing and the MICRA, there is overall low distress and uncertainty, but higher scores for parents than adult or minor patients. In conclusion, there has been high interest in germline genetic testing in pediatric oncology patients with all families deciding to pursue genetic testing after viewing GTS. GTS is an effective tool in increasing genetic testing knowledge in participants. Therefore, GTS is a promising approach to increase access to genetic testing, while providing adequate pre-test counseling and no decisional conflict. Citation Format: Camille Hamilton, Mariana Niell Swiller, Franceska Bhansali, Alyssa Hoover, Stephanie Bottomley, Marisa Lewis, Bianca Russell, Julian A. Martinez, Beth Karlan, Noah Federman, Vivian Y. Chang. Genetic testing station increases access to germline genetic testing [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2024; Part 1 (Regular Abstracts); 2024 Apr 5-10; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(6_Suppl):Abstract nr 6375.

oncology
Challenges in implementation of molecular classification in early stage endometrial cancer—An NRG Oncology cooperative group mixed‐methods study

Elise M. Wilson,Ruizhi Huang,Kristen D. Jones,Ian S. Hagemann,Sarah M. Temkin,Jessica N. McAlpine,Matthew A. Powell,Maura M. Kepper,Andrea R. Hagemann

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.35596

IF: 6.9209

2024-10-19

Cancer

Abstract:Background Professional guidelines recommend molecular profiling for mismatch repair (MMR), p53, and polymerase epsilon (POLE) status in endometrial cancer (EC). However, adoption in the United States has not been documented, and barriers to the implementation of testing have not been described. Methods In this mixed‐methods study, implementation science frameworks were used to develop a quantitative survey. Gynecologic oncologists, medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, and pathologists affiliated with NRG Oncology programs were contacted through snowball sampling and were surveyed during 2022–2023. A subset of respondents was interviewed. Statistical and thematic analyses were performed. Results At least 403 NRG Oncology‐affiliated providers were contacted for the survey, and 107 (26.6%) responded. Greater than 90% of respondents perceived POLE, MMR, and p53 status as important for clinical care. MMR and p53 tests were perceived as easy to obtain, but only 24.2% of respondents reported that POLE testing was moderately or very easy to obtain. Respondents from academic sites reported better access to molecular classification and perceived greater importance of molecular classification compared with respondents from community sites. In thematic analysis of 13 qualitative interviews, cost concerns were reported as large barriers to testing. Interviewees reported a desire for prospective data to guide treatment selection based on classification results. Conclusions Although integrating molecular classification into standard pathologic reporting is recommended, and clinicians perceive molecular profiling in early stage EC as important, survey respondents noted significant implementation barriers. Implementation challenges that differ between community oncology and academic practice settings were identified. Strategies to improve equitable access to molecular classification of early stage EC are needed.

oncology
Mixed-Methods Evaluation of the Implementation of a Hereditary Cancer Risk Screening Questionnaire in a Safety Net Hospital [ID 2683409]

Molly Zielenbach,Wendy Cervantes De Leon,Alison Hamilton,Leah Marsh,Marlene Mendoza,Christine Holschneider

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.aog.0001013204.56653.e4

2024-05-01

Abstract:INTRODUCTION: Patients belonging to medically underserved groups who meet testing criteria for hereditary cancer syndromes are less likely to be referred for genetic services and to complete testing. In our safety net hospital women’s health clinics, we introduced a novel National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)-based screening questionnaire as part of a community health worker (CHW)-supported hereditary cancer risk assessment and testing program. METHODS: We quantified program effect and conducted semistructured interviews with nurses and providers (n=12). We used rapid qualitative analysis to assess familiarity with screening questionnaire and barriers to its utilization. Institutional review board approval was obtained. RESULTS: Since January 2020, 2,282 patients were screened: 169 via provider referral and 2,113 via questionnaire. 312 met NCCN criteria for testing, with 30 ultimately testing positive. Nurses were familiar with the screening questionnaire and assumed an active role in facilitating completion. They reported minimal familiarity with the process after questionnaire completion. Providers reported minimal familiarity with the screening questionnaire but did assess family history and refer for genetic services. Barriers to successful utilization of the questionnaire included time constraints, patient literacy, language barriers, and gaps in patients' knowledge of their family history. CONCLUSION: Implementation of a targeted questionnaire may increase access to testing for hereditary cancer syndromes. We identified the following opportunities for implementation improvement: staff education, increased clinic efficiency, and CHW support with collection of accurate histories from patients with limited literacy/knowledge of their family's health history. Replication of a CHW-supported questionnaire-based screening program could reduce disparities in access to genetic services for patients in safety net settings.

obstetrics & gynecology
Standards-Based Clinical Decision Support Platform to Manage Patients Who Meet Guideline-Based Criteria for Genetic Evaluation of Familial Cancer

Guilherme Del Fiol,Wendy Kohlmann,Richard L Bradshaw,Charlene R Weir,Michael Flynn,Rachel Hess,Joshua D Schiffman,Claude Nanjo,Kensaku Kawamoto

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/CCI.19.00120

Abstract:Purpose: The ubiquitous adoption of electronic health records (EHRs) with family health history (FHH) data provides opportunities for tailoring cancer screening strategies to individuals. We aimed to enable a standards-based clinical decision support (CDS) platform for identifying and managing patients who meet guidelines for genetic evaluation of hereditary cancer. Methods: The CDS platform (www.opencds.org) was used to implement algorithms based on the 2018 National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for genetic evaluation of hereditary breast/ovarian and colorectal cancer. The platform was designed to be interfaced with different EHR systems via the Health Level Seven International Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources standard. The platform was integrated with the Epic EHR and evaluated in a pilot study at an academic health care system. Results: The CDS platform was executed against a target population of 143,012 patients; 5,245 (3.7%) met criteria for genetic evaluation based on the FHH recorded in the EHR. In a clinical pilot study, genetic counselors attempted to reach out to 71 of the patients. Of those patients, 25 (35%) scheduled an appointment, 10 (14%) declined, 2 (3%) did not need genetic counseling, 7 (10%) said they would consider it in the future, and 27 (38%) were unreachable. To date, 13 (52%) of the scheduled patients completed visits, and 2 (15%) of those were found to have pathogenic variants in cancer predisposition genes. Conclusion: A standards-based CDS platform integrated with EHR systems is a promising population-based approach to identify patients who are appropriate candidates for genetic evaluation of hereditary cancers.
Monitoring clonal burden as an alternative to blast count for myelodysplastic neoplasm treatment response

Meagan A. Jacoby,Eric D. Duncavage,Ajay Khanna,Gue Su Chang,Sridhar Nonavinkere Srivatsan,Christopher A. Miller,Feng Gao,Josh Robinson,Jin Shao,Robert S. Fulton,Catrina C. Fronick,Michelle O'Laughlin,Sharon E. Heath,Kimberly Brendel,Monique Chavez,John F. DiPersio,Camille N. Abboud,Keith Stockerl-Goldstein,Peter Westervelt,Amanda Cashen,Iskra Pusic,Stephen T. Oh,John S. Welch,Denise A. Wells,Michael R. Loken,Geoffrey L. Uy,Matthew J. Walter

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41375-024-02426-0

2024-10-05

Leukemia

Abstract:Accurate assessment of therapy response in myelodysplastic neoplasm (MDS) has been challenging. Directly monitoring mutational disease burden may be useful, but is not currently included in MDS response criteria, and the correlation of mutational burden and traditional response endpoints is not completely understood. Here, we used genome-wide and targeted next-generation sequencing (NGS) to monitor clonal and subclonal molecular disease burden in 452 samples from 32 patients prospectively treated in a clinical trial. Molecular responses were compared with International Working Group (IWG) 2006-defined response assessments. We found that myeloblast percentage consistently underestimates MDS molecular disease burden and that mutational clearance patterns for marrow complete remission (mCR), which depends on myeloblast assessment, was not different than stable disease or bone marrow aplasia, underscoring a major limitation of using mCR. In contrast, achieving a complete remission (CR) was associated with the highest level of mutation clearance and lowest residual mutational burden in higher-risk MDS patients. A targeted gene panel approach was inferior to genome-wide sequencing in defining subclones and their molecular responses but may be adequate for monitoring molecular disease burden when a targeted gene is present in the founding clone. Our work supports incorporating serial NGS-based monitoring into prospective MDS clinical trials.

oncology,hematology

Determination of aluminium in human serum by means of flameless atomic absorption technique.

Poor compliance with germline testing recommendations in colorectal cancer patients undergoing molecular residual disease testing

Feasibility and Clinical Utility of Reporting Hereditary Cancer Predisposition Pathogenic Variants Identified in Research Germline Sequencing: A Prospective Interventional Study

Genetic predisposition to myelodysplastic syndrome: Genetic counseling and transplant implications

Wide Variation in Use and Interpretation of Gene Mutation Profiling Panels Among Health Care Providers of Patients with Myelodysplastic Syndromes (MDS): Results of a Large Web-Based Survey

Diagnosis and Treatment of Myelodysplastic Syndrome in the Era of Genetic Testing

Development and Evaluation of the Clinical Utility of a Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) Tool for Myeloid Disorders

Clinical Utility of Molecular Tumor Board Review for Identification of Possible Germline Pathogenic Variants on Tumor Next-Generation Sequencing Reports

Challenges in patient-centered germline testing delivery for veterans with advanced prostate cancer (APC).

Evaluation of implementation of risk management guidelines for carriers of pathogenic variants in mismatch repair genes: a nationwide audit of familial cancer clinics

Implementation of Germline Testing for Prostate Cancer: Philadelphia Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2019

Retrospective review of compliance with guideline-directed germline testing in microsatellite instability-high colorectal cancer treated at the Veterans Health Administration.

Validation of a guidelines-based digital tool to assess the need for germline cancer genetic testing

Cancer Predisposition Genetic Testing Among Children with Hematologic Malignancies

Germline Predisposition to Hematopoietic Malignancies: An Overview

Therapeutic Implications of Germline Testing in Patients With Advanced Cancers

Abstract 6375: Genetic testing station increases access to germline genetic testing

Challenges in implementation of molecular classification in early stage endometrial cancer—An NRG Oncology cooperative group mixed‐methods study

Mixed-Methods Evaluation of the Implementation of a Hereditary Cancer Risk Screening Questionnaire in a Safety Net Hospital [ID 2683409]

Standards-Based Clinical Decision Support Platform to Manage Patients Who Meet Guideline-Based Criteria for Genetic Evaluation of Familial Cancer

Monitoring clonal burden as an alternative to blast count for myelodysplastic neoplasm treatment response