No abstract

Tumor genomic profiling (TGP) has the potential to identify germline variants in addition to its primary use of informing cancer treatment based on genetic alterations within the tumor. However, there are no formal consensus guidelines to identify patients who would be eligible for genetic counseling (GC) and germline testing (GT) testing in patients undergoing TGP. The purpose of this study is to describe an institutionally developed Germline Review Protocol (GRP) to evaluate adult cancer patient cases already undergoing TGP to determine GC referral eligibility. We report on our retrospective experience implementing this protocol into practice wherein 172 patients out of 638 patients reviewed (27%) were recommended for a GC referral over a 17-month time period. Of those 172 patients recommended for a GC referral, only 34 patients (20%) completed GC and GT. Among patients who received GT, 15 (44%) were positive for at least one pathogenic or likely pathogenic (P/LP) variant, seven patients (21%) were negative and 12 patients (35%) had at least 1 variant of uncertain significance (VUS). The primary reason GC and GT was not completed was because the patient moved to hospice care or was deceased. This is one of the first studies outlining the process and results of a formalized institutional protocol to facilitate patient referrals for GC and GT based on TGP results.

Despite major advances in genetic testing for breast cancer, access to genetic counseling and testing are significantly lower among immigrant and refugee populations. Both patient related barriers and provider-based factors contribute to disparities in genetic referrals and testing. Previous studies addressing genetic referral patterns among the minorities have focused on African Americans, however, there are no reports addressing disparities in genetic referrals and testing in Asian immigrant and refugee populations living in the United States (US). Given the rapid influx of these populations and increasing rates of breast cancer among Asian immigrant populations in the US, this area remains unexplored. This review addresses the current data on familial breast cancer syndromes, describe the various barriers, and attempts to provide suggestions to eliminate the disparities in genetic referral patterns.

760 Background: Somatic and germline DDR gene alterations in PC have been postulated to positively predict response to DNA damaging cytotoxic agents. Due to the relatively high prevalence of germline DDR gene alterations, germline testing is recommended in all pts with PC. We examined whether somatic CGP can be used to reliably identify PC pts that merit germline testing. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the electronic medical records of PC pts who underwent both somatic CGP (utilizing the Foundation One assay) and germline testing. DDR gene mutations were categorized as somatic-pathogenic, somatic-variant of uncertain significance (VUS), germline-pathogenic and germline-VUS. For somatic testing, DNA was extracted from formalin fixed paraffin embedded (FFPE) clinical specimens and CGP was done on hybrid-capture, adaptor ligation based libraries to a mean coverage depth of > 600 for up to 315 genes plus 47 introns from 19 genes frequently rearranged in cancer. Germline genetic testing was performed on submitted blood or saliva samples, utilizing commercial assays; next generation or Sanger sequencing of all coding regions and adjacent intronic nucleotides were performed. Results: Ninety-three pts had somatic CGP data, 51 (55%) pts had both somatic CGP and germline data available. Among the 51 pts with both germline and somatic data available, DDR gene alterations that were somatic-pathogenic, germline-pathogenic, somatic-VUS and germline-VUS were present in 7 (13.7%), 7 (13.7%), 23 (45.1%) and 16 (31.4%) pts, respectively. Of the 7 pts with somatic-pathogenic alterations, 5 (71%) had a concordant germline alteration and of the 7 pts with germline-pathogenic alterations, 5 (71%) had a concordant somatic alteration. Of the 23 pts with somatic-VUSs, 12 (52%) had a concordant germline VUS and of the 16 pts with germline-VUSs, 12 (75%) had a concordant somatic VUS. Conclusions: Both somatic and germline DDR gene alterations are common in PC pts. Despite the relatively high concordance rate between somatic and germline pathogenic DDR gene alterations, somatic CGP will miss approximately one fourth of the germline DDR gene alterations.

BACKGROUND: Germline genetic testing is routinely incorporated into clinical care for breast cancer patients to inform management decisions and reduce risk for developing subsequent cancers. While the diagnostic yield of cancer genetic testing has increased over the years due to adoption of multigene panels, a substantial portion of breast cancer patients remain without a molecular diagnosis yet are suspected to have a genetic mutation that could not be detected and/or classified with standard DNA testing techniques. We assessed the ability of a novel genetic testing approach involving simultaneous DNA and RNA analysis to increase the diagnostic yield and decrease the number of variants of unknown significance (VUS). METHODS: Women with a personal history of breast cancer were ascertained from a larger cohort of patients referred for concurrent RNA sequencing alongside DNA hereditary cancer panel testing by ordering clinicians from 18 collaborating medical centers across the United States. Test result classifications were evaluated for women whose testing included sixteen clinically-actionable hereditary breast and/or ovarian cancer (HBOC) genes (ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, BRIP1, CDH1, CHEK2, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, NF1, PALB2, PMS2, PTEN, RAD51C, RAD51D, and TP53). RESULTS: In this cohort of 746 breast cancer patients, the addition of RNA sequencing increased the pathogenic variant detection rate from 8% to 9% across sixteen HBOC genes. These RNA-related positive results included two pathogenic variants in BRCA1 occurring outside the standard analytical range of DNA testing and three VUS (one each in ATM, BRCA2, and PMS2) that were reclassified as likely pathogenic as a result of additional information provided by RNA sequencing. In addition, two VUS were reclassified to benign/likely benign (one each in MSH2 and BRCA2). Together, these five variant reclassifications contributed to a 3% relative decrease in the number of unique VUS classifications (reduced from 182 to 177 unique VUS). In addition, 31 previously-tested patients received reclassification reports. CONCLUSIONS: Concurrent DNA and RNA genetic testing has shown immediate promise in this pilot study, leading to the identification of five breast cancer patients with mutations in clinically actionable genes that would otherwise have received inconclusive or negative results with DNA testing alone. By increasing the detection of germline pathogenic variants and reducing VUS classifications, concurrent DNA and RNA genetic testing increases the diagnostic yield and clinical impact of hereditary cancer testing for breast cancer patients. Citation Format: Holly LaDuca, Lily Hoang, Jill Dolinsky, Jessica Profato, Amal Yussuf, Carolyn Horton, Cara Dresbold, Cassie Garcia, Catherine Koptiuch, Danielle Dondanville, Danielle McKenna, Danielle Menashe, Deborah Wham, Deepika Nathan, Diane Samad, Elizabeth Hoodfar, Gayle Patel, Jen Moore, Jennifer Geurts, John Lee, Kara Milliron, Khateriaa Pyrtel, Meagan Farmer, Meredith Seidel, Morgan Depas, Nichole Morman, Olivia Tan, Rebekah Krukenberg, Rob Pilarski, Samantha Stachowiak, Sandra Jenkinson, Sara Pirzadeh-Miller, Shraddha Gaonkar, Tiffani Demarco, Brigette Tippin Davis, Elizabeth C Chao, Rachid Karam. Concurrent DNA and RNA genetic testing identifies more patients with hereditary breast cancer than DNA testing alone [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P6-08-08.