Suppr超能文献

肿瘤基因组分析与胚系基因检测之间的差异。

Discrepancies between tumor genomic profiling and germline genetic testing.

机构信息

Family Cancer Assessment Clinic, Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, USA.

Family Cancer Assessment Clinic, Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, USA.

出版信息

ESMO Open. 2022 Aug;7(4):100526. doi: 10.1016/j.esmoop.2022.100526. Epub 2022 Jul 1.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Tumor genomic profiling (TGP) often incidentally identifies germline pathogenic variants (PVs) associated with cancer predisposition syndromes. Methods used by somatic testing laboratories, including germline analysis, differ from designated germline laboratories that have optimized the identification of germline PVs. This study evaluated discrepancies between somatic and germline testing results, and their impact on patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Chart reviews were carried out at a single institution for patients who had both somatic and designated germline genetic testing. Cases with discrepant results in which germline PVs were not detected by the somatic laboratory or in which variant classification differed are summarized.

RESULTS

TGP was carried out on 2811 cancer patients, 600 of whom also underwent designated germline genetic testing. Germline PVs were identified for 109 individuals. Discrepancies between germline genetic testing and tumor profiling reports were identified in 20 cases, including 14 PVs identified by designated germline genetic testing laboratories that were not reported by somatic testing laboratories and six variants with discrepant classifications between the designated germline and somatic testing laboratories. Three PVs identified by designated germline laboratories are targets for poly adenosine diphosphate-ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors and resulted in different treatment options. Of the PVs identified by designated germline laboratories, 60% (n = 12) were in genes with established associations to the patients' cancer, and 40% of the PVs were incidental. The majority (90%) of all discrepant findings, both contributory and incidental, changed management recommendations for these patients, highlighting the importance of comprehensive germline assessment.

CONCLUSIONS

Methods used by somatic laboratories, regardless of the inclusion of germline analysis, differ from those of designated germline laboratories for identifying germline PVs. Unrecognized germline PVs may harm patients by missing hereditary syndromes and targeted therapy opportunities (e.g. anti-programmed cell death protein 1 immunotherapy, PARP inhibitors). Clinicians should refer patients who meet the criteria for genetic evaluation regardless of somatic testing outcomes.

摘要

背景

肿瘤基因组分析(TGP)通常偶然发现与癌症易感性综合征相关的种系致病性变异(PVs)。体细胞检测实验室使用的方法,包括种系分析,与专门用于识别种系 PVs 的指定种系实验室不同。本研究评估了体细胞和种系检测结果之间的差异及其对患者的影响。

患者和方法

在一家医疗机构对同时进行体细胞和指定种系基因检测的患者进行了病历回顾。总结了在体细胞实验室未检测到种系 PVs 或变异分类不同的情况下出现不一致结果的病例。

结果

对 2811 名癌症患者进行了 TGP,其中 600 名患者还接受了指定的种系基因检测。确定了 109 个人的种系 PVs。在种系基因检测和肿瘤分析报告之间发现了 20 例不一致,其中 14 例 PVs 是由指定的种系基因检测实验室发现的,但体细胞检测实验室未报告,6 例变异在指定的种系和体细胞检测实验室之间分类不一致。指定的种系实验室发现的 3 个 PVs 是聚腺苷二磷酸核糖聚合酶(PARP)抑制剂的靶点,导致不同的治疗选择。在指定的种系实验室发现的 PVs 中,60%(n=12)与患者的癌症有明确的关联,40%的 PVs 是偶然发现的。所有不一致发现(无论是有贡献的还是偶然的)中有 90%改变了这些患者的管理建议,突出了全面种系评估的重要性。

结论

无论是否包括种系分析,体细胞实验室使用的方法与专门用于识别种系 PVs 的指定种系实验室不同。未识别的种系 PVs 可能会通过错过遗传性综合征和靶向治疗机会(例如抗程序性细胞死亡蛋白 1 免疫疗法、PARP 抑制剂)而伤害患者。无论体细胞检测结果如何,临床医生都应将符合遗传评估标准的患者转介。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/c13c/9511791/1b4eca7b1363/gr1.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验