Person:

Sholl, Lynette

Background: The diversity of clinical tumor profiling approaches (small panels to whole exomes with matched or unmatched germline analysis) may engender uncertainty about their benefits and liabilities, particularly in light of reported germline false positives in tumor-only profiling and use of global mutational and/or neoantigen data. The goal of this study was to determine the impact of genomic analysis strategies on error rates and data interpretation across contexts and ancestries. Methods: We modeled common tumor profiling modalities—large (n = 300 genes), medium (n = 48 genes), and small (n = 15 genes) panels—using clinical whole exomes (WES) from 157 patients with lung or colon adenocarcinoma. We created a tumor-only analysis algorithm to assess germline false positive rates, the impact of patient ancestry on tumor-only results, and neoantigen detection. Results: After optimizing a germline filtering strategy, the germline false positive rate with tumor-only large panel sequencing was 14 % (144/1012 variants). For patients whose tumor-only results underwent molecular pathologist review (n = 91), 50/54 (93 %) false positives were correctly interpreted as uncertain variants. Increased germline false positives were observed in tumor-only sequencing of non-European compared with European ancestry patients (p < 0.001; Fisher’s exact) when basic germline filtering approaches were used; however, the ExAC database (60,706 germline exomes) mitigated this disparity (p = 0.53). Matched and unmatched large panel mutational load correlated with WES mutational load (r2 = 0.99 and 0.93, respectively; p < 0.001). Neoantigen load also correlated (r2 = 0.80; p < 0.001), though WES identified a broader spectrum of neoantigens. Small panels did not predict mutational or neoantigen load. Conclusions: Large tumor-only targeted panels are sufficient for most somatic variant identification and mutational load prediction if paired with expanded germline analysis strategies and molecular pathologist review. Paired germline sequencing reduced overall false positive mutation calls and WES provided the most neoantigens. Without patient-matched germline data, large germline databases are needed to minimize false positive mutation calling and mitigate ethnic disparities. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13073-016-0333-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

PD-1 immune checkpoint blockade occasionally results in durable clinical responses in advanced metastatic cancers. However, mechanism-based predictors of response to this immunotherapy remain incompletely characterized. We performed comprehensive genomic profiling on a tumor and germline sample from a patient with refractory lung adenocarcinoma who achieved marked long-term clinical benefit from anti-PD-L1 therapy. We discovered activating somatic and germline amino acid variants in JAK3 that promoted PD-L1 induction in lung cancer cells and in the tumor immune microenvironment. These findings suggest that genomic alterations that deregulate cytokine receptor signal transduction could contribute to PD-L1 activation and engagement of the PD-1 immune checkpoint in lung cancer.

Purpose While targeted sequencing improves outcomes for many cancer patients, how somatic and germline whole-exome sequencing (WES) will integrate into care remains uncertain. Methods: We conducted surveys and interviews, within a study of WES integration at an academic center, to determine oncologists' attitudes about WES and to identify lung and colorectal cancer patients' preferences for learning WES findings. Results: 167 patients (85% white, 58% female, mean age 60) and 27 oncologists (22% female) participated. Although oncologists had extensive experience ordering somatic tests (median 100/year), they had little experience ordering germline tests. Oncologists intended to disclose most WES results to patients but anticipated numerous challenges in using WES. Patients had moderately low levels of genetic knowledge (mean 4 correct of 7). Most patients chose to learn results that could help select a clinical trial, pharmacogenetic and positive prognostic results, and results suggesting inherited predisposition to cancer and treatable non-cancer conditions (all ≥95%). Fewer chose to receive negative prognostic results (84%) and results suggesting predisposition to untreatable non-cancer conditions (85%). Conclusion: The majority of patients want most cancer-related and incidental WES results. Patients' low levels of genetic knowledge and oncologists' inexperience with large-scale sequencing presage challenges to implementing paired WES in practice.

Aim: To understand how a cancer precision medicine tumor board (CPM-TB) made choices about return of results. Materials & methods: Observed CPM-TB deliberations and completed in-depth interviews with committee members. Results: Responding to complex evidence of ambiguous significance, deliberations of the CPM-TB were predicated on analytic validity and clinical utility. Members had concerns both about potential harms due to returning results based on weak evidence and about withholding potentially meaningful results. Group dynamics and the clinical experiences of individual committee members shaped their work. Conclusion: Both scientific evidence and the social context surrounding deliberations of a CPM-TB influenced decisions about return of results. Subjective elements, while present in any scientific endeavor, may carry more weight in the face of ambiguous findings.