Case series examining somatic test results for patients with hereditary cancer syndromes associated with gastrointestinal cancer risk.

Authors

null

Kristen Pauley

Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT

Kristen Pauley , Cathryn Koptiuch , Samantha Greenberg , Gammon Amanda , Christopher Nevala-Plagemann , Jennie Vagher , Whitney Espinel , Glynn Weldon Gilcrease , Wendy Kohlmann , Ignacio Garrido-Laguna

Organizations

Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT, University of Utah and Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT

Research Funding

U.S. National Institutes of Health
U.S. National Institutes of Health

Background: Somatic tumor testing may identify germline pathogenic variants (PV) associated with cancer predisposition syndromes. Labs differ whether they offer somatic only or paired germline analysis. Methods used by somatic testing labs, even those that include germline analysis, differ from designated germline labs that have optimized the identification of germline PV. Methods: Chart reviews were performed for patients who had testing through both somatic and designated germline laboratories. Cases with discrepant results in which germline PV were not detected by the somatic laboratory are summarized. Results: Nine cases with discrepant results. Five had paired germline testing and 4 somatic testing only. All 9 patients met the criteria to undergo designated germline testing, either for Lynch syndrome (3) or BRCA1/2 testing (6), based on personal and/or family history. Designated germline testing identified 4 MLH1, 1 BRCA1, 2 ATM, 1 MUTYH and 1 RAD50 PV not reported by the somatic labs’ tumor or germline analysis; 2 MLH1 PV were called variants of uncertain significance by somatic testing but classified as PV by ClinVar and designated germline labs. Three PV identified by designated germline labs are targets for PARP inhibitors and resulted in different treatment options. Three of the MLH1 PV were identified in patients meeting Lynch Syndrome test criteria while 1 was identified in a patient meeting BRCA1/2 criteria. Among the 5 other patients meeting BRCA1/2 test criteria, 3 had PV in breast cancer genes (2 ATM, 1 BRCA1) and 2 had PV in other cancer genes (MUTYH and RAD50) not reported by the somatic labs, highlighting the importance of panel testing. Conclusions: Methods used by somatic labs, regardless of inclusion of germline analysis, are not equivalent to those of designated germline labs. Overlooked germline PV may miss identification of hereditary syndromes and targeted therapy opportunities (e.g. Anti-PD1 immunotherapy, PARP inhibitors). Patients meeting criteria for genetic evaluation should be referred for designated germline testing regardless of somatic testing outcomes.

Disclaimer

This material on this page is ©2024 American Society of Clinical Oncology, all rights reserved. Licensing available upon request. For more information, please contact licensing@asco.org

Abstract Details

Meeting

2020 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium

Session Type

Poster Session

Session Title

Poster Session B: Hepatobiliary Cancer, Neuroendocrine/Carcinoid, Pancreatic Cancer, and Small Bowel Cancer

Track

Hepatobiliary Cancer,Neuroendocrine/Carcinoid,Pancreatic Cancer,Small Bowel Cancer,Other GI Cancer

Sub Track

Prevention, Screening, and Hereditary Cancers

Citation

J Clin Oncol 38, 2020 (suppl 4; abstr 680)

Abstract #

680

Poster Bd #

J11

Abstract Disclosures

Similar Abstracts

First Author: Nikolaos Tsoulos

Abstract

2023 ASCO Annual Meeting

Spectrum of germline pathogenic variants among patients with cancer in Mexico.

First Author: Jose Luis Rodriguez Olivares