Faculty Bibliography

The maturation of genomic technologies has enabled new discoveries in disease pathogenesis as well as new approaches to patient care. In pediatric oncology, patients may now receive individualized genomic analysis to identify molecular aberrations of relevance for diagnosis and/or treatment. In this context, several recent clinical studies have begun to explore the feasibility and utility of genomics-driven precision medicine. Here, we review the major developments in this field, discuss current limitations, and explore aspects of the clinical implementation of precision medicine, which lack consensus. Lastly, we discuss ongoing scientific efforts in this arena, which may yield future clinical applications.

IMPORTANCE: Cancer is caused by a diverse array of somatic and germline genomic aberrations. Advances in genomic sequencing technologies have improved the ability to detect these molecular aberrations with greater sensitivity. However, integrating them into clinical management in an individualized manner has proven challenging. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the use of integrative clinical sequencing and genetic counseling in the assessment and treatment of children and young adults with cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Single-site, observational, consecutive case series (May 2012-October 2014) involving 102 children and young adults (mean age, 10.6 years; median age, 11.5 years, range, 0-22 years) with relapsed, refractory, or rare cancer. EXPOSURES: Participants underwent integrative clinical exome (tumor and germline DNA) and transcriptome (tumor RNA) sequencing and genetic counseling. Results were discussed by a precision medicine tumor board, which made recommendations to families and their physicians. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Proportion of patients with potentially actionable findings, results of clinical actions based on integrative clinical sequencing, and estimated proportion of patients or their families at risk of future cancer. RESULTS: Of the 104 screened patients, 102 enrolled with 91 (89%) having adequate tumor tissue to complete sequencing. Only the 91 patients were included in all calculations, including 28 (31%) with hematological malignancies and 63 (69%) with solid tumors. Forty-two patients (46%) had actionable findings that changed their cancer management: 15 of 28 (54%) with hematological malignancies and 27 of 63 (43%) with solid tumors. Individualized actions were taken in 23 of the 91 (25%) based on actionable integrative clinical sequencing findings, including change in treatment for 14 patients (15%) and genetic counseling for future risk for 9 patients (10%). Nine of 91 (10%) of the personalized clinical interventions resulted in ongoing partial clinical remission of 8 to 16 months or helped sustain complete clinical remission of 6 to 21 months. All 9 patients and families with actionable incidental genetic findings agreed to genetic counseling and screening. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this single-center case series involving young patients with relapsed or refractory cancer, incorporation of integrative clinical sequencing data into clinical management was feasible, revealed potentially actionable findings in 46% of patients, and was associated with change in treatment and family genetic counseling for a small proportion of patients. The lack of a control group limited assessing whether better clinical outcomes resulted from this approach than outcomes that would have occurred with standard care.

Genetic testing (GT) for inherited cancer predisposition is most informative when initiated in individuals with cancer, thus standard practice recommends GT start in an affected individual. This strategy can be frustrating for unaffected consultands and providers. Retrospective review of cases was performed to compare outcomes of testing the unaffected consultand and recommending that testing start in an affected relative. Records from cancer-free consultands (N = 101), presenting to the University of Michigan Cancer Genetics Clinic between 6/1/2011 and 12/30/2011 were reviewed. All genetics records for these consultands were reviewed through 3/31/2013 for GT recommendations (117 total). The unaffected consultand was offered testing in 14.5 % of cases, testing was completed in 64.7 % of these with one mutation identified. Of consultands tested initially, 70.5 % received cancer-screening recommendations based on family history and test results. Testing was recommended to start in an affected family member in 30.7 % of cases. Fifty percent returned to clinic with information on an affected family member; 83.3 % documented that their family member underwent GT with one mutation identified. Consultands reported the affected family member refused testing in 22.2 % and two of these consultands subsequently pursued GT, identifying one mutation. Fifty percent of cases where testing the family member first was recommended were lost to follow-up with 66.6 % of these never given cancer-screening recommendations. Cancer genetic risk evaluation of healthy consultands should consider the option of pursuing GT in the unaffected consultand and should implement a plan for tailored risk management in the absence of informative genetic evaluation within the family.

Whole genome and exome sequencing tests are increasingly being ordered in clinical practice, creating a need for research exploring the return of results from these tests. A goal of the Clinical Sequencing and Exploratory Research (CSER) consortium is to gain experience with this process to develop best practice recommendations for offering exome and genome testing and returning results. Genetic counselors in the CSER consortium have an integral role in the return of results from these genomic sequencing tests and have gained valuable insight. We present seven emerging themes related to return of exome and genome sequencing results accompanied by case descriptions illustrating important lessons learned, counseling challenges specific to these tests and considerations for future research and practice.

IMPORTANCE Sebaceous neoplasms (SNs) define the Muir-Torre syndrome variant of Lynch syndrome (LS), which is associated with increased risk for colon and other cancers necessitating earlier and more frequent screening to reduce morbidity and mortality.Immunohistochemical (IHC) staining for mismatch repair (MMR) proteins in SNs can be used to screen for LS, but data on subsequent germline genetic testing to confirm LS diagnosis are limited.OBJECTIVE To characterize the utility of IHC screening of SNs in identification of germline MMR mutations confirming LS.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Retrospective study at 2 academic cancer centers of 86 adult patients referred for clinical genetics evaluation after diagnosis of SN.MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Results of tumor IHC testing and germline genetic testing were reviewed to determine positive predictive value and sensitivity of IHC testing in diagnosis of LS. Clinical variables, including age at diagnosis of SN, clinical diagnostic criteria for LS and Muir-Torre syndrome, and family history characteristics were compared between mutation carriers and noncarriers.RESULTS Of 86 patients with SNs, 25 (29%) had germline MMR mutations confirming LS.Among 77 patients with IHC testing on SNs, 38 (49%) had loss of staining of 1 or more MMR proteins and 14 had germline MMR mutations. Immunohistochemical analysis correctly identified 13 of 16 MMR mutation carriers, corresponding to 81% sensitivity. Ten of 12 patients(83%) with more than 1 SN had MMR mutations. Fifty-two percent of MMR mutation carriers did not meet clinical diagnostic criteria for LS, and 11 of 25 (44%) did not meet the clinical definition of Muir-Torre syndrome. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Immunohistochemical screening of SNs is effective in identifying patients with germline MMR mutations and can be used as a first-line test when LSis suspected. Abnormal IHC results, including absence of MSH2, are not diagnostic of LS and should be interpreted cautiously in conjunction with family history and germline genetic testing. Use of family history to select patients for IHC screening has substantial limitations,suggesting that universal IHC screening of SNs merits further study. Clinical genetics evaluation is warranted for patients with abnormal IHC test results, normal IHC test results with personal or family history of other LS-associated neoplasms, and/or multiple SNs.