Genetic Testing Utilization: Discrepancies Between Somatic and Germline Results in Patients With Cancer Reviewed at the UW Health Precision Medicine Molecular Tumor Board

Author:

Horn Isaac P.1ORCID,Zakas Anna L.23ORCID,Smith-Simmer Kelcy J.23ORCID,Birkeland Laura E.1,Sundstrom Rachel2,Burkard Mark E.24ORCID,Weiss Jennifer M.5

Affiliation:

1. University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI

2. Oncology Genetics, University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center, UW Health, Madison, WI

3. Master of Genetic Counselor Studies, Academic Affairs, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI

4. Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology and Oncology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI

5. Department of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI

Abstract

PURPOSE Somatic and germline testing are increasingly used to estimate risks for patients with cancer. Although both germline testing and somatic testing can identify genetic variants that could change a patient's care and eligible treatments, the aims of these tests and their technologies are fundamentally different and cannot be used interchangeably. This study examines the timing and results of somatic and germline genetic testing for patients with cancer at UW Health. METHODS Eight hundred and seventy-seven participants underwent somatic genetic testing, which was reviewed by the Precision Medicine Molecular Tumor Board (PMMTB). Patients were diagnosed with cancers, including breast, colorectal, endometrial, pancreatic, or ovarian cancer, and met National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria for germline genetic testing. Germline testing details were collected by medical record review. RESULTS The results of this study found that only 310 patients (35%) had germline evaluation before PMMTB review. The percent of germline pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants identified in actionable genes was 28%. Most germline variants were identified in the BRCA1 (26%) and BRCA2 (28%) genes. In total, 65% (54/83) of germline variants were detected with both germline testing and somatic testing; however, 35% (29/83) of germline variants were not identified on somatic results. These results demonstrate the importance of combination germline and somatic testing. CONCLUSION This study highlights the differences in genetic testing types and demonstrates that conducting germline testing at earlier stages of diagnoses is necessary to identify potentially actionable and treatment-specific variants in patients with cancer.

Publisher

American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)

Cited by 1 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

1. Tumor-Only Sequencing: A Story Only Half Told;JCO Precision Oncology;2024-05

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3