Use of treatment focused tumor sequencing to screen for germline cancer predisposition

Author(s):  
Tammy T.Y. Lau ◽  
Christina M. May ◽  
Zahra Jalali Sefid Dashti ◽  
Lucas Swanson ◽  
Elizabeth R. Starks ◽  
...  
2019 ◽  
pp. 1-26
Author(s):  
Suzanne P. MacFarland ◽  
Kristin Zelley ◽  
Lea F. Surrey ◽  
Daniel Gallo ◽  
Minjie Luo ◽  
...  

PURPOSE The diagnosis of cancer predisposition in pediatric patients with cancer is vital for treatment decisions, surveillance, and management of at-risk family members. Somatic tumor testing can identify potential underlying constitutional variants that confer increased cancer risk. Here, we report the characteristics of constitutional variants identified through tumor testing. MATERIALS AND METHODS Data were abstracted from medical record review of 1,023 patients who received in-house somatic tumor testing over a 28-month period. Patients were identified for testing using referral criteria developed as a collaboration between genomic diagnostics, pathology, and oncology. Characteristics of patients who underwent constitutional testing, including family history and variant loss of heterozygosity, were tracked. RESULTS From 1,023 patients who underwent somatic tumor sequencing in a 28-month period, 210 variants were identified in 141 patients (13.8%) that were concerning for cancer predisposition syndromes requiring intervention. A total of 73 variants in 41 patients have undergone clinical confirmatory testing thus far. Of these, 26 variants were confirmed to be constitutionally present (35.6%). Among patients tested, 23 (56.1%) of 41 total patients were diagnosed with a cancer predisposition syndrome. CONCLUSION Our data demonstrate that more than one third of variants in tumor somatic sequencing that were concerning for underlying cancer predisposition were constitutionally confirmed. Overall, somatic tumor testing identified potential cancer predisposition syndromes in pediatric patients, and some would not have been identified on the basis of clinical history alone.


2006 ◽  
Vol 175 (4S) ◽  
pp. 317-317
Author(s):  
Xifeng Wu ◽  
Jian Gu ◽  
H. Barton Grossman ◽  
Christopher I. Amos ◽  
Carol Etzel ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Haifa Al-Sarhani ◽  
Ravi V. Gottumukkala ◽  
Angelo Don S. Grasparil ◽  
Eric L. Tung ◽  
Michael S. Gee ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 214 (7) ◽  
pp. 335
Author(s):  
Nicholas Leedman ◽  
Murray Princehorn ◽  
Nicholas Gottardo ◽  
Claire Franklin ◽  
Rebecca D'Souza ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Georgina M. Schlub ◽  
Ashley Crook ◽  
Kristine Barlow‐Stewart ◽  
Jane Fleming ◽  
Judy Kirk ◽  
...  

Cancers ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 118
Author(s):  
Louisa Lepkes ◽  
Mohamad Kayali ◽  
Britta Blümcke ◽  
Jonas Weber ◽  
Malwina Suszynska ◽  
...  

The identification of germline copy number variants (CNVs) by targeted next-generation sequencing (NGS) frequently relies on in silico CNV prediction tools with unknown sensitivities. We investigated the performances of four in silico CNV prediction tools, including one commercial (Sophia Genetics DDM) and three non-commercial tools (ExomeDepth, GATK gCNV, panelcn.MOPS) in 17 cancer predisposition genes in 4208 female index patients with familial breast and/or ovarian cancer (BC/OC). CNV predictions were verified via multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification. We identified 77 CNVs in 76 out of 4208 patients (1.81%); 33 CNVs were identified in genes other than BRCA1/2, mostly in ATM, CHEK2, and RAD51C and less frequently in BARD1, MLH1, MSH2, PALB2, PMS2, RAD51D, and TP53. The Sophia Genetics DDM software showed the highest sensitivity; six CNVs were missed by at least one of the non-commercial tools. The positive predictive values ranged from 5.9% (74/1249) for panelcn.MOPS to 79.1% (72/91) for ExomeDepth. Verification of in silico predicted CNVs is required due to high frequencies of false positive predictions, particularly affecting target regions at the extremes of the GC content or target length distributions. CNV detection should not be restricted to BRCA1/2 due to the relevant proportion of CNVs in further BC/OC predisposition genes.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document