Kingshuk Das

IMPORTANCE: Clinical exome sequencing (CES) is rapidly becoming a common molecular diagnostic test for individuals with rare genetic disorders. OBJECTIVE: To report on initial clinical indications for CES referrals and molecular diagnostic rates for different indications and for different test types. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Clinical exome sequencing was performed on 814 consecutive patients with undiagnosed, suspected genetic conditions at the University of California, Los Angeles, Clinical Genomics Center between January 2012 and August 2014. Clinical exome sequencing was conducted as trio-CES (both parents and their affected child sequenced simultaneously) to effectively detect de novo and compound heterozygous variants or as proband-CES (only the affected individual sequenced) when parental samples were not available. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Clinical indications for CES requests, molecular diagnostic rates of CES overall and for phenotypic subgroups, and differences in molecular diagnostic rates between trio-CES and proband-CES. RESULTS: Of the 814 cases, the overall molecular diagnosis rate was 26% (213 of 814; 95% CI, 23%-29%). The molecular diagnosis rate for trio-CES was 31% (127 of 410 cases; 95% CI, 27%-36%) and 22% (74 of 338 cases; 95% CI, 18%-27%) for proband-CES. In cases of developmental delay in children (<5 years, n = 138), the molecular diagnosis rate was 41% (45 of 109; 95% CI, 32%-51%) for trio-CES cases and 9% (2 of 23, 95% CI, 1%-28%) for proband-CES cases. The significantly higher diagnostic yield (P value = .002; odds ratio, 7.4 [95% CI, 1.6-33.1]) of trio-CES was due to the identification of de novo and compound heterozygous variants. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this sample of patients with undiagnosed, suspected genetic conditions, trio-CES was associated with higher molecular diagnostic yield than proband-CES or traditional molecular diagnostic methods. Additional studies designed to validate these findings and to explore the effect of this approach on clinical and economic outcomes are warranted.

Importance: Both germline genetic testing and tumor DNA sequencing are increasingly used in cancer care. The indications for testing and utility of these 2 tests differ, and guidelines recommend that germline analysis follow tumor sequencing in certain patients to determine whether particular variants are of somatic or germline origin. Broad clinical experience with such follow-up testing has not yet been thoroughly described. Objective: To examine the yield and utility of germline testing following tumor DNA sequencing in a large, diverse patient population. Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective cohort study examined germline testing through a laboratory supporting multiple academic and community clinics. Participants included 2023 patients with cancer who received germline testing and previously underwent tumor DNA sequencing. These patients received germline testing between January 5, 2015, and January 31, 2020, although most (81% of patients) received testing between January 2, 2018, and January 31, 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: The prevalence of pathogenic germline variants (PGVs) was calculated by gene, cancer type, and age at diagnosis. Potential actionability of these findings was determined based on current management guidelines, precision therapy labels, and clinical trial eligibility criteria. Patient records were reviewed to determine whether germline follow-up testing would have been recommended by current guidelines. Results: Among 2023 eligible patients, 1085 were female (53.6%), and the median age at cancer diagnosis was 56 (range, 0-92) years. Pathogenic germline variants were detected in 617 patients (30.5%; 95% CI, 28.5%-32.6%) and were prevalent across patient ages (1-85 years) and cancer types, including cancers known to be strongly associated with germline variance (eg, breast, colorectal) as well as others (eg, renal, lung, and bladder). Many patients (78%-82%) with PGVs met criteria for germline follow-up testing, and 8.1% of PGVs were missed by tumor sequencing. Among those with germline-positive findings, 69 patients (11.2%) had PGVs identified only after presenting with a second primary cancer that possibly could have been detected earlier or prevented given current gene-specific surveillance and risk-reduction recommendations. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this study suggest that germline analysis following tumor sequencing often produces findings that may impact patient care by influencing systemic therapy choices, surgical decisions, additional cancer screening, and genetic counseling in families. Current guidelines and tumor testing approaches appear to capture many, but not all, of these germline findings, reinforcing the utility of both expanded germline follow-up testing as well as germline analysis independent of tumor sequencing in appropriate patients.

In the field of oncology, clinical molecular diagnostics and biomarker discoveries are constantly advancing as the intricate molecular mechanisms that transform a normal cell into an aberrant state in concert with the dysregulation of alternative complementary pathways are increasingly understood. Progress in biomarker technology, coupled with the companion clinical diagnostic laboratory tests, continue to advance this field, where individualized and customized treatment appropriate for each individual patient define the standard of care. Here, we discuss the current commonly used predictive pharmacogenetic biomarkers in clinical oncology molecular testing: BRAF V600E for vemurafenib in melanoma; EML4-ALK for crizotinib and EGFR for erlotinib and gefitinib in non-small-cell lung cancer; KRAS against the use of cetuximab and panitumumab in colorectal cancer; ERBB2 (HER2/neu) for trastuzumab in breast cancer; BCR-ABL for tyrosine kinase inhibitors in chronic myeloid leukemia; and PML/RARα for all-trans-retinoic acid and arsenic trioxide treatment for acute promyelocytic leukemia.