BACKGROUND: BRCA 1/2 mutation status has become one of the most important parameters for treatment decision in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). The aim of this study was to compare tumor DNA with blood DNA sequencing to evaluate the reliability of BRCA tumor testing results. METHODS: Patients who were treated for EOC between 2003 and 2019 at the Medical University of Vienna and underwent both germline (gBRCA) and tumor (tBRCA) testing for BRCA mutations were identified. We calculated the concordance rate and further analyzed discordant cases. RESULTS: Out of 140 patients with EOC, gBRCA mutation was found in 47 (33.6%) and tBRCA mutation in 53 (37.9%) patients. Tumor testing identified an additional 9/140 (6.4%) patients with somatic BRCA mutation and negative germline testing. The comparison of germline testing with tumor testing revealed a concordance rate of 93.5% and a negative predictive value of tumor testing of 96.0%. After BRCA variants of uncertain significance were included in the analysis, concordance rate decreased to 90.9%. CONCLUSION: Tumor testing identified the majority of pathogenic germline BRCA mutations but missed three (2.1%) patients. In contrast, nine (6.4%) patients harboring a somatic BRCA mutation would have been missed by gBRCA testing only.
BACKGROUND:BRCA 1/2 mutation status has become one of the most important parameters for treatment decision in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). The aim of this study was to compare tumor DNA with blood DNA sequencing to evaluate the reliability of BRCA tumor testing results. METHODS:Patients who were treated for EOC between 2003 and 2019 at the Medical University of Vienna and underwent both germline (gBRCA) and tumor (tBRCA) testing for BRCA mutations were identified. We calculated the concordance rate and further analyzed discordant cases. RESULTS: Out of 140 patients with EOC, gBRCA mutation was found in 47 (33.6%) and tBRCA mutation in 53 (37.9%) patients. Tumor testing identified an additional 9/140 (6.4%) patients with somatic BRCA mutation and negative germline testing. The comparison of germline testing with tumor testing revealed a concordance rate of 93.5% and a negative predictive value of tumor testing of 96.0%. After BRCA variants of uncertain significance were included in the analysis, concordance rate decreased to 90.9%. CONCLUSION:Tumor testing identified the majority of pathogenic germline BRCA mutations but missed three (2.1%) patients. In contrast, nine (6.4%) patients harboring a somatic BRCA mutation would have been missed by gBRCA testing only.
Authors: Kathryn P Pennington; Tom Walsh; Maria I Harrell; Ming K Lee; Christopher C Pennil; Mara H Rendi; Anne Thornton; Barbara M Norquist; Silvia Casadei; Alexander S Nord; Kathy J Agnew; Colin C Pritchard; Sheena Scroggins; Rochelle L Garcia; Mary-Claire King; Elizabeth M Swisher Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2013-11-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Barbara Norquist; Kaitlyn A Wurz; Christopher C Pennil; Rochelle Garcia; Jenny Gross; Wataru Sakai; Beth Y Karlan; Toshiyasu Taniguchi; Elizabeth M Swisher Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-06-27 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Barbara M Norquist; Maria I Harrell; Mark F Brady; Tom Walsh; Ming K Lee; Suleyman Gulsuner; Sarah S Bernards; Silvia Casadei; Qian Yi; Robert A Burger; John K Chan; Susan A Davidson; Robert S Mannel; Paul A DiSilvestro; Heather A Lankes; Nilsa C Ramirez; Mary Claire King; Elizabeth M Swisher; Michael J Birrer Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2016-04 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Shiyu Zhang; Robert Royer; Song Li; John R McLaughlin; Barry Rosen; Harvey A Risch; Isabel Fan; Linda Bradley; Patricia A Shaw; Steven A Narod Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2011-02-15 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Kathleen Moore; Nicoletta Colombo; Giovanni Scambia; Byoung-Gie Kim; Ana Oaknin; Michael Friedlander; Alla Lisyanskaya; Anne Floquet; Alexandra Leary; Gabe S Sonke; Charlie Gourley; Susana Banerjee; Amit Oza; Antonio González-Martín; Carol Aghajanian; William Bradley; Cara Mathews; Joyce Liu; Elizabeth S Lowe; Ralph Bloomfield; Paul DiSilvestro Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2018-10-21 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Melissa J Landrum; Jennifer M Lee; Mark Benson; Garth R Brown; Chen Chao; Shanmuga Chitipiralla; Baoshan Gu; Jennifer Hart; Douglas Hoffman; Wonhee Jang; Karen Karapetyan; Kenneth Katz; Chunlei Liu; Zenith Maddipatla; Adriana Malheiro; Kurt McDaniel; Michael Ovetsky; George Riley; George Zhou; J Bradley Holmes; Brandi L Kattman; Donna R Maglott Journal: Nucleic Acids Res Date: 2018-01-04 Impact factor: 16.971
Authors: Ewa Przybytkowski; Thomas Davis; Abdelrahman Hosny; Julia Eismann; Ursula A Matulonis; Gerburg M Wulf; Sheida Nabavi Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2020-03-12 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Gillian Ellison; Miika Ahdesmäki; Sally Luke; Paul M Waring; Andrew Wallace; Ronnie Wright; Benno Röthlisberger; Katja Ludin; Sabine Merkelbach-Bruse; Carina Heydt; Marjolijn J L Ligtenberg; Arjen R Mensenkamp; David Gonzalez de Castro; Thomas Jones; Ana Vivancos; Olga Kondrashova; Patrick Pauwels; Christine Weyn; Eric Hahnen; Jan Hauke; Richie Soong; Zhongwu Lai; Brian Dougherty; T Hedley Carr; Justin Johnson; John Mills; J Carl Barrett Journal: Hum Mutat Date: 2017-12-28 Impact factor: 4.878
Authors: Sidrah Shah; Alison Cheung; Mikolaj Kutka; Matin Sheriff; Stergios Boussios Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-07-01 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Vida Stegel; Ana Blatnik; Erik Škof; Vita Šetrajčič Dragoš; Mateja Krajc; Brigita Gregorič; Petra Škerl; Ksenija Strojnik; Gašper Klančar; Marta Banjac; Janez Žgajnar; Maja Ravnik; Srdjan Novaković Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-03-10 Impact factor: 6.639