Germline Sequencing Improves Tumor-Only Sequencing Interpretation in a Precision Genomic Study of Patients With Pediatric Solid Tumor. (22nd December 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Schienda, Jaclyn; Church, Alanna J.; Corson, Laura B.; Decker, Brennan; Clinton, Catherine M.; Manning, Danielle K.; Imamovic-Tuco, Alma; Reidy, Deirdre; Strand, Gianna R.; Applebaum, Mark A.; Bagatell, Rochelle; DuBois, Steven G.; Glade-Bender, Julia L.; Kang, Wenjun; Kim, AeRang; Laetsch, Theodore W.; Macy, Margaret E.; Maese, Luke; Pinto, Navin; Sabnis, Amit J.; Schiffman, Joshua D.; Colace, Susan I.; Volchenboum, Samuel L.; Weiser, Daniel A.; Nowak, Jonathan A.; Lindeman, Neal I.; Janeway, Katherine A.; Crompton, Brian D.; Kamihara, Junne
• Is Part Of: JCO precision oncology. Volume 5(2021)
• Page Start: 1840
• Page End: 1852
• Publication Date: 2021-12-22
• Subjects: Precision Medicine; Neoplasms; Pharmacogenetics; Molecular Targeted Therapy; Personalized medicine; Oncology; Pharmacogenomics; Periodical; Periodicals; 616.994
• DOI: 10.1200/PO.21.00281
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2473-4284

Abstract

Abstract : PURPOSE: Molecular tumor profiling is becoming a routine part of clinical cancer care, typically involving tumor-only panel testing without matched germline. We hypothesized that integrated germline sequencing could improve clinical interpretation and enhance the identification of germline variants with significant hereditary risks. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Tumors from pediatric patients with high-risk, extracranial solid malignancies were sequenced with a targeted panel of cancer-associated genes. Later, germline DNA was analyzed for a subset of these genes. We performed a post hoc analysis to identify how an integrated analysis of tumor and germline data would improve clinical interpretation. RESULTS: One hundred sixty participants with both tumor-only and germline sequencing reports were eligible for this analysis. Germline sequencing identified 38 pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants among 35 (22%) patients. Twenty-five (66%) of these were included in the tumor sequencing report. The remaining germline pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants were single-nucleotide variants filtered out of tumor-only analysis because of population frequency or copy-number variation masked by additional copy-number changes in the tumor. In tumor-only sequencing, 308 of 434 (71%) single-nucleotide variants reported were present in the germline, including 31% with suggested clinical utility. Finally, we provide further evidence that the variant allele fraction from tumor-only sequencing is insufficient to differentiate somatic from germline events. CONCLUSION: A paired approach to analyzing tumor and germline sequencing data would be expected to improve the efficiency and accuracy of distinguishing somatic mutations and germline variants, thereby facilitating the process of variant curation and therapeutic interpretation for somatic reports, as well as the identification of variants associated with germline cancer predisposition.