Allison W Kurian1, Emily E Hare1, Meredith A Mills1, Kerry E Kingham1, Lisa McPherson1, Alice S Whittemore1, Valerie McGuire1, Uri Ladabaum1, Yuya Kobayashi1, Stephen E Lincoln1, Michele Cargill1, James M Ford2. 1. Allison W. Kurian, Meredith A. Mills, Kerry E. Kingham, Lisa McPherson, Alice S. Whittemore, Valerie McGuire, Uri Ladabaum, James M. Ford, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford; Emily E. Hare, Yuya Kobayashi, Stephen E. Lincoln, Michele Cargill, InVitae, San Francisco, CA. 2. Allison W. Kurian, Meredith A. Mills, Kerry E. Kingham, Lisa McPherson, Alice S. Whittemore, Valerie McGuire, Uri Ladabaum, James M. Ford, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford; Emily E. Hare, Yuya Kobayashi, Stephen E. Lincoln, Michele Cargill, InVitae, San Francisco, CA. jmf@stanford.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Multiple-gene sequencing is entering practice, but its clinical value is unknown. We evaluated the performance of a customized germline-DNA sequencing panel for cancer-risk assessment in a representative clinical sample. METHODS: Patients referred for clinical BRCA1/2 testing from 2002 to 2012 were invited to donate a research blood sample. Samples were frozen at -80° C, and DNA was extracted from them after 1 to 10 years. The entire coding region, exon-intron boundaries, and all known pathogenic variants in other regions were sequenced for 42 genes that had cancer risk associations. Potentially actionable results were disclosed to participants. RESULTS: In total, 198 women participated in the study: 174 had breast cancer and 57 carried germline BRCA1/2 mutations. BRCA1/2 analysis was fully concordant with prior testing. Sixteen pathogenic variants were identified in ATM, BLM, CDH1, CDKN2A, MUTYH, MLH1, NBN, PRSS1, and SLX4 among 141 women without BRCA1/2 mutations. Fourteen participants carried 15 pathogenic variants, warranting a possible change in care; they were invited for targeted screening recommendations, enabling early detection and removal of a tubular adenoma by colonoscopy. Participants carried an average of 2.1 variants of uncertain significance among 42 genes. CONCLUSION: Among women testing negative for BRCA1/2 mutations, multiple-gene sequencing identified 16 potentially pathogenic mutations in other genes (11.4%; 95% CI, 7.0% to 17.7%), of which 15 (10.6%; 95% CI, 6.5% to 16.9%) prompted consideration of a change in care, enabling early detection of a precancerous colon polyp. Additional studies are required to quantify the penetrance of identified mutations and determine clinical utility. However, these results suggest that multiple-gene sequencing may benefit appropriately selected patients.
PURPOSE: Multiple-gene sequencing is entering practice, but its clinical value is unknown. We evaluated the performance of a customized germline-DNA sequencing panel for cancer-risk assessment in a representative clinical sample. METHODS:Patients referred for clinical BRCA1/2 testing from 2002 to 2012 were invited to donate a research blood sample. Samples were frozen at -80° C, and DNA was extracted from them after 1 to 10 years. The entire coding region, exon-intron boundaries, and all known pathogenic variants in other regions were sequenced for 42 genes that had cancer risk associations. Potentially actionable results were disclosed to participants. RESULTS: In total, 198 women participated in the study: 174 had breast cancer and 57 carried germline BRCA1/2 mutations. BRCA1/2 analysis was fully concordant with prior testing. Sixteen pathogenic variants were identified in ATM, BLM, CDH1, CDKN2A, MUTYH, MLH1, NBN, PRSS1, and SLX4 among 141 women without BRCA1/2 mutations. Fourteen participants carried 15 pathogenic variants, warranting a possible change in care; they were invited for targeted screening recommendations, enabling early detection and removal of a tubular adenoma by colonoscopy. Participants carried an average of 2.1 variants of uncertain significance among 42 genes. CONCLUSION: Among women testing negative for BRCA1/2 mutations, multiple-gene sequencing identified 16 potentially pathogenic mutations in other genes (11.4%; 95% CI, 7.0% to 17.7%), of which 15 (10.6%; 95% CI, 6.5% to 16.9%) prompted consideration of a change in care, enabling early detection of a precancerous colon polyp. Additional studies are required to quantify the penetrance of identified mutations and determine clinical utility. However, these results suggest that multiple-gene sequencing may benefit appropriately selected patients.
Authors: Nasim Mavaddat; Susan Peock; Debra Frost; Steve Ellis; Radka Platte; Elena Fineberg; D Gareth Evans; Louise Izatt; Rosalind A Eeles; Julian Adlard; Rosemarie Davidson; Diana Eccles; Trevor Cole; Jackie Cook; Carole Brewer; Marc Tischkowitz; Fiona Douglas; Shirley Hodgson; Lisa Walker; Mary E Porteous; Patrick J Morrison; Lucy E Side; M John Kennedy; Catherine Houghton; Alan Donaldson; Mark T Rogers; Huw Dorkins; Zosia Miedzybrodzka; Helen Gregory; Jacqueline Eason; Julian Barwell; Emma McCann; Alex Murray; Antonis C Antoniou; Douglas F Easton Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2013-04-29 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Peter J Miller; Sekhar Duraisamy; Joan A Newell; Philip A Chan; Mark M Tie; Amy E Rogers; Claire K Ankuda; Genevieve M von Walstrom; Jeffrey P Bond; Marc S Greenblatt Journal: Hum Mutat Date: 2011-08 Impact factor: 4.878
Authors: Alfons Meindl; Heide Hellebrand; Constanze Wiek; Verena Erven; Barbara Wappenschmidt; Dieter Niederacher; Marcel Freund; Peter Lichtner; Linda Hartmann; Heiner Schaal; Juliane Ramser; Ellen Honisch; Christian Kubisch; Hans E Wichmann; Karin Kast; Helmut Deissler; Christoph Engel; Bertram Müller-Myhsok; Kornelia Neveling; Marion Kiechle; Christopher G Mathew; Detlev Schindler; Rita K Schmutzler; Helmut Hanenberg Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2010-04-18 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Kenneth Offit; Angela Bradbury; Courtney Storm; Jon F Merz; Kevin E Noonan; Rebecca Spence Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2013-06-13 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Nazneen Rahman; Sheila Seal; Deborah Thompson; Patrick Kelly; Anthony Renwick; Anna Elliott; Sarah Reid; Katarina Spanova; Rita Barfoot; Tasnim Chagtai; Hiran Jayatilake; Lesley McGuffog; Sandra Hanks; D Gareth Evans; Diana Eccles; Douglas F Easton; Michael R Stratton Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2006-12-31 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Eric Tram; Irada Ibrahim-Zada; Laurent Briollais; Julia A Knight; Irene L Andrulis; Hilmi Ozcelik Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2011-08-11 Impact factor: 6.466
Authors: Goncalo R Abecasis; Adam Auton; Lisa D Brooks; Mark A DePristo; Richard M Durbin; Robert E Handsaker; Hyun Min Kang; Gabor T Marth; Gil A McVean Journal: Nature Date: 2012-11-01 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Allison W Kurian; Aya Mitani; Manisha Desai; Peter P Yu; Tina Seto; Susan C Weber; Cliff Olson; Pragati Kenkare; Scarlett L Gomez; Monique A de Bruin; Kathleen Horst; Jeffrey Belkora; Suepattra G May; Dominick L Frosch; Douglas W Blayney; Harold S Luft; Amar K Das Journal: Cancer Date: 2013-09-24 Impact factor: 6.921
Authors: Allison W Kurian; Kevin C Ward; Nadia Howlader; Dennis Deapen; Ann S Hamilton; Angela Mariotto; Daniel Miller; Lynne S Penberthy; Steven J Katz Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2019-04-09 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Charité Ricker; Julie O Culver; Katrina Lowstuter; Duveen Sturgeon; Julia D Sturgeon; Christopher R Chanock; William J Gauderman; Kevin J McDonnell; Gregory E Idos; Stephen B Gruber Journal: Cancer Genet Date: 2016-01-12
Authors: Reshma Jagsi; Kent A Griffith; Allison W Kurian; Monica Morrow; Ann S Hamilton; John J Graff; Steven J Katz; Sarah T Hawley Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-04-06 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Winifred Lo; Bin Zhu; Arvind Sabesan; Ho-Hsiang Wu; Astin Powers; Rebecca A Sorber; Sarangan Ravichandran; Ina Chen; Lucas A McDuffie; Humair S Quadri; Joal D Beane; Kathleen Calzone; Markku M Miettinen; Stephen M Hewitt; Christopher Koh; Theo Heller; Sholom Wacholder; Udo Rudloff Journal: J Med Genet Date: 2019-02-11 Impact factor: 6.318