MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3048224515 · doi:10.1158/1538-7445.pedca19-a06

Abstract A06: The added value of examining germline variants in a precision cancer therapy study

2020· article· en· W3048224515 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jaclyn Schienda, Catherine Clinton, Laura Corson, Alma Imamović, Navin Pinto, Luke Maese, Theodore W. Laetsch, AeRang Kim, Susan I. Vear, Margaret E. Macy, Mark A. Applebaum, Rochelle Bagatell, Amit J. Sabnis, Daniel A. Weiser, Julia Glade Bender, Samuel L. Volchenboum, Wenjun Kang, Danielle K. Manning, Jonathan A. Nowak, Joshua D. Schiffman, Neal I. Lindeman, Alanna J. Church, Katherine A. Janeway, Brian D. Crompton, Junne Kamihara

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGermlineGeneticsGermline mutationExome sequencingCancerBiologyGenomicsSingle-nucleotide polymorphismGeneMedicineBioinformaticsComputational biologyGenomeMutationGenotype

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: Tumor profiling is becoming a more routine part of clinical care. Many academic centers and commercial entities offer tumor sequencing of cancer-related genes without matched germline profiling. We hypothesize that tumor-only sequencing may limit full clinical interpretation and have decreased sensitivity to identify significant germline variants. Methods: The Genomic Assessment Improves Novel Therapy (GAIN) Consortium is a clinical cancer genomics study for patients with high-risk solid malignancies. Patients in this study were selected for subanalysis if panel sequencing of 447 genes was performed on a tumor and interpreted by an expert panel prior to the availability of matched germline sequencing. Interpretation of tumor sequencing included both therapeutic recommendations and a curation of cancer-related variants of potential clinical significance if present in the germline. Germline sequencing was separately performed targeting 147 genes (a subset of the somatic panel) and analyzed with a germline-specific pipeline to identify and filter variants. We examined clinical recommendations in the somatic reports that were based on single-nucleotide variants identified from the 147 overlapping genes. We compared these interpretations with results from the matched germline data. Results: We identified 159 participants with somatic and germline sequencing reports meeting the eligibility criteria. Germline sequencing identified 38 pathogenic or likely pathogenic (P/LP) germline variants in 35 of 159 patients (22%). Of those 35 patients, 17 (49%) had a P/LP variant in an autosomal dominant cancer predisposition gene, 19 (54%) in an autosomal recessive gene, and 1 (2.9%) in a noncancer gene. Of the 38 total variants, 21 (55%) were identified by the analytic pipeline used for somatic sequencing and noted as potential germline variants in the somatic reports. Forty treatment recommendations were made from the somatic data within the overlapping genes. Ten (25%) treatment recommendations were based on variants that were later determined to be germline. These included variants in TP53, SDHA, SMARCA4, TSC2, FAM175A, CHEK2, and AKT1, many of which were noted in the somatic reports to be variants of uncertain significance or possibly germline. Conclusions: In this study, we found that clinically actionable germline variants were under-reported when relying on analytical pipelines and clinical interpretations developed for the analysis of tumor samples. In the absence of germline sequencing, we also found that cancer treatment recommendations can be made based on mutations identified from tumor sequencing that are germline variants. In many cases, these recommendations remain appropriate (e.g., PARP inhibitors for BRCA1/2) while in other cases germline data facilitated a more nuanced interpretation of actionability. These findings support the use of germline genetic testing and paired tumor-germline analysis in precision cancer medicine studies. Citation Format: Jaclyn Schienda, Catherine M. Clinton, Laura B. Corson, Alma Imamovic-Tuco, Navin Pinto, Luke Maese, Theodore W. Laetsch, AeRang Kim, Susan I. Vear, Margaret E. Macy, Mark A. Applebaum, Rochelle Bagatell, Amit J. Sabnis, Daniel A. Weiser, Julia L. Glade-Bender, Samuel L. Volchenboum, Wenjun Kang, Danielle Manning, Jonathan Nowak, Joshua Schiffman, Neal I. Lindeman, Alanna J. Church, Katherine A. Janeway, Brian D. Crompton, Junne Kamihara. The added value of examining germline variants in a precision cancer therapy study [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference on the Advances in Pediatric Cancer Research; 2019 Sep 17-20; Montreal, QC, Canada. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(14 Suppl):Abstract nr A06.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.071
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.105

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.071
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.136
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.289 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Research→Same topicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics→French-language works237,207→