Person:

Lindeman, Neal

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.

Translating whole exome sequencing (WES) for prospective clinical use may impact the care of cancer patients; however, multiple innovations are necessary for clinical implementation. These include: (1) rapid and robust WES from formalin-fixed paraffin embedded (FFPE) tumor tissue, (2) analytical output similar to data from frozen samples, and (3) clinical interpretation of WES data for prospective use. Here, we describe a prospective clinical WES platform for archival FFPE tumor samples. The platform employs computational methods for effective clinical analysis and interpretation of WES data. When applied retrospectively to 511 exomes, the interpretative framework revealed a “long tail” of somatic alterations in clinically important genes. Prospective application of this approach identified clinically relevant alterations in 15/16 patients. In one patient, previously undetected findings guided clinical trial enrollment leading to an objective clinical response. Overall, this methodology may inform the widespread implementation of precision cancer medicine.

Background: Recent developments in genomic sequencing have advanced our understanding of the mutations underlying human malignancy. Melanoma is a prototype of an aggressive, genetically heterogeneous cancer notorious for its biologic plasticity and predilection towards developing resistance to targeted therapies. Evidence is rapidly accumulating that dysregulated epigenetic mechanisms (DNA methylation/demethylation, histone modification, non-coding RNAs) may play a central role in the pathogenesis of melanoma. Therefore, we sought to characterize the frequency and nature of mutations in epigenetic regulators in clinical, treatment-naïve, patient melanoma specimens obtained from one academic institution. Results: Targeted next-generation sequencing for 275 known and investigative cancer genes (of which 41 genes, or 14.9 %, encoded an epigenetic regulator) of 38 treatment-naïve patient melanoma samples revealed that 22.3 % (165 of 740) of all non-silent mutations affected an epigenetic regulator. The most frequently mutated genes were BRAF, MECOM, NRAS, TP53, MLL2, and CDKN2A. Of the 40 most commonly mutated genes, 12 (30.0 %) encoded epigenetic regulators, including genes encoding enzymes involved in histone modification (MECOM, MLL2, SETD2), chromatin remodeling (ARID1B, ARID2), and DNA methylation and demethylation (TET2, IDH1). Among the 38 patient melanoma samples, 35 (92.1 %) harbored at least one mutation in an epigenetic regulator. The genes with the highest number of total UVB-signature mutations encoded epigenetic regulators, including MLL2 (100 %, 16 of 16) and MECOM (82.6 %, 19 of 23). Moreover, on average, epigenetic genes harbored a significantly greater number of UVB-signature mutations per gene than non-epigenetic genes (3.7 versus 2.4, respectively; p = 0.01). Bioinformatics analysis of The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) melanoma mutation dataset also revealed a frequency of mutations in the 41 epigenetic genes comparable to that found within our cohort of patient melanoma samples. Conclusions: Our study identified a high prevalence of somatic mutations in genes encoding epigenetic regulators, including those involved in DNA demethylation, histone modification, chromatin remodeling, and microRNA processing. Moreover, UVB-signature mutations were found more commonly among epigenetic genes than in non-epigenetic genes. Taken together, these findings further implicate epigenetic mechanisms, particularly those involving the chromatin-remodeling enzyme MECOM/EVI1 and histone-modifying enzyme MLL2, in the pathobiology of melanoma. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13148-015-0091-3) 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.

INTRODUCTION

ALK gene rearrangements occur in ~5% of lung adenocarcinomas (ACA), leading to ALK overexpression and predicting response to targeted therapy. Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) is the gold standard for detection of ALK rearrangements in lung ACA but requires specialized equipment and expertise. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) for ALK protein overexpression is a promising screening modality, with reports of newer antibodies showing excellent sensitivity and specificity for ALK-rearranged lung ACA.

METHODS

In this study, we analyze ALK IHC (5A4 clone) in 186 cases from our clinical service and compare with ALK FISH and EGFR and KRAS mutation status.

RESULTS

Twelve cases had concordant ALK protein overexpression and ALK rearrangement by FISH. Three ALK-rearranged cases lacked ALK protein expression. Of these discrepant cases, one had a coexisting EGFR mutation and a subtle “atypical” ALK rearrangement with a break in the 5’ centromeric portion of the FISH probe. One case had a concurrent BRAF mutation; followup testing on a metastasis revealed absence of the ALK-rearrangement with persistent BRAF mutation. In one ALK-rearranged, protein negative case, very limited tissue remained for ALK IHC, raising the possibility of false negativity due to protein expression heterogeneity. Importantly, ALK protein expression was detected in one case initially thought not to have an ALK rearrangement. In this case, FISH was falsely negative due to interference by benign reactive nuclei. After correcting for these cases, ALK IHC was 93% sensitive and 100% specific as compared to FISH.

CONCLUSIONS

ALK IHC improves the detection of ALK rearrangements when used together with FISH, and its use in lung adenocarcinoma genetic testing algorithms should be considered.

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.

The era of personalized medicine has arrived, and with it a need for leaders in this discipline. This generation of trainees requires a cadre of new skill sets to lead the implementation of personalized medicine into mainstream healthcare. Traditional training programs no longer provide trainees with all the skills they will need to optimize implementation of this revolution now underway in medicine. Today’s trainees must manage clinical teams, act as clinical and molecular diagnostic consultants, train other healthcare professionals, teach future generations, and be knowledgeable about clinical trials to facilitate genomic-based therapies. To prepare trainees for the transition to junior faculty positions, contemporary genomic training programs must emphasize the development of these management, teaching, and clinical skills.

About 10% of patients with non–small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) respond to epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). More than 75% of “responders” have activating mutations in EGFR. However, mutation analysis is not widely available, and proposed alternatives (in situ hybridization and immunohistochemical analysis) have shown inconsistent associations with outcome. Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), chromogenic in situ hybridization (CISH), immunohistochemical analysis, and DNA sequencing were compared in this study of 40 NSCLC samples from TKI-treated patients. Response rates were 12 of 19 in EGFR-mutant vs 1 of 20 EGFR wild-type tumors (P = .0001), 7 of 19 FISH+ vs 4 of 17 FISH– tumors (not significant [NS]), 5 of 16 CISH+ vs 6 of 21 CISH– tumors (NS), and 3 of 9 immunohistochemically positive vs 7 of 22 immunohistochemically negative tumors (NS). EGFR mutation was associated with improved progression-free survival (P = .0004). Increased copy number (FISH or CISH) and protein expression (immunohistochemical) did not independently predict outcome. Thus, EGFR sequence analysis was the only method useful for predicting response and progression-free survival following TKI therapy in NSCLC.

Next generation sequencing (NGS) is increasingly being used clinically to characterize the molecular alterations found in patients’ tumors. These testing results have the potential to affect clinical care by guiding therapeutic approaches based upon genotype. NGS based testing approaches have a distinct advantage over provider-ordered single gene testing in that they can detect unexpected, yet clinically important genetic changes. Here, we illustrate this principle with the case of a 33-year-old man with myeloid sarcoma that was refractory to six different chemotherapeutic regimens. Our clinical NGS assay detected an unanticipated FIP1L1-PDGFRA rearrangement in his tumor. The patient was immediately placed on Imatinib therapy to which he responded, and remains in remission 10 months after the rearrangement was initially detected.

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.