Assessment of Diagnostic Outcomes of RNA Genetic Testing for Hereditary Cancer.


Journal

JAMA network open
ISSN: 2574-3805
Titre abrégé: JAMA Netw Open
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101729235

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
02 10 2019
Historique:
entrez: 24 10 2019
pubmed: 24 10 2019
medline: 19 6 2020
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Performing DNA genetic testing (DGT) for hereditary cancer genes is now a well-accepted clinical practice; however, the interpretation of DNA variation remains a challenge for laboratories and clinicians. Adding RNA genetic testing (RGT) enhances DGT by clarifying the clinical actionability of hereditary cancer gene variants, thus improving clinicians' ability to accurately apply strategies for cancer risk reduction and treatment. To evaluate whether RGT is associated with improvement in the diagnostic outcome of DGT and in the delivery of personalized cancer risk management for patients with hereditary cancer predisposition. Diagnostic study in which patients and/or families with inconclusive variants detected by DGT in genes associated with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, Lynch syndrome, and hereditary diffuse gastric cancer sent blood samples for RGT from March 2016 to April 2018. Clinicians who ordered genetic testing and received a reclassification report for these variants were surveyed to assess whether RGT-related variant reclassifications changed clinical management of these patients. To quantify the potential number of tested individuals who could benefit from RGT, a cohort of 307 812 patients who underwent DGT for hereditary cancer were separately queried to identify variants predicted to affect splicing. Data analysis was conducted from March 2016 and September 2018. Variant reclassification outcomes following RGT, clinical management changes associated with RGT-related variant reclassifications, and the proportion of patients who would likely be affected by a concurrent DGT and RGT multigene panel testing approach. In total, 93 if 909 eligible families (10.2%) submitted samples for RGT. Evidence from RGT clarified the interpretation of 49 of 56 inconclusive cases (88%) studied; 26 (47%) were reclassified as clinically actionable and 23 (41%) were clarified as benign. Variant reclassifications based on RGT results changed clinical management recommendations for 8 of 18 patients (44%) and 14 of 18 families (78%), based on responses from 18 of 45 clinicians (40%) surveyed. A total of 7265 of 307 812 patients who underwent DGT had likely pathogenic variants or variants of uncertain significance potentially affecting splicing, indicating that approximately 1 in 43 individuals could benefit from RGT. In this diagnostic study, conducting RNA testing resolved a substantial proportion of variants of uncertain significance in a cohort of individuals previously tested for cancer predisposition by DGT. Performing RGT might change the diagnostic outcome of at least 1 in 43 patients if performed in all individuals undergoing genetic evaluation for hereditary cancer.

Identifiants

pubmed: 31642931
pii: 2753400
doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.13900
pmc: PMC6820040
doi:

Substances chimiques

RNA 63231-63-0

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

e1913900

Références

Int J Breast Cancer. 2016;2016:2469523
pubmed: 27822389
Genet Med. 2014 Nov;16(11):830-7
pubmed: 24763289
J Comput Biol. 2004;11(2-3):377-94
pubmed: 15285897
Am J Hum Genet. 2018 Oct 4;103(4):498-508
pubmed: 30219179
JAMA Oncol. 2017 Mar 1;3(3):391-397
pubmed: 28033448
Hum Mutat. 2017 Jun;38(6):611-614
pubmed: 28251733
Hum Mutat. 2008 Nov;29(11):1282-91
pubmed: 18951446
Br J Cancer. 2018 Jul;119(2):141-152
pubmed: 29867226
Nat Rev Cancer. 2016 Sep;16(9):599-612
pubmed: 27515922
Nat Med. 2019 Jun;25(6):911-919
pubmed: 31160820
Genet Med. 2014 Dec;16(12):896-902
pubmed: 24854227
Hum Mutat. 2018 Nov;39(11):1517-1524
pubmed: 30192042
Nucleic Acids Res. 2003 Jul 1;31(13):3568-71
pubmed: 12824367
Hum Mutat. 2018 Nov;39(11):1553-1568
pubmed: 30311375
Sci Transl Med. 2017 Apr 19;9(386):
pubmed: 28424332
Fam Cancer. 2016 Jul;15(3):423-7
pubmed: 26969309
Genet Med. 2015 May;17(5):405-24
pubmed: 25741868
N Engl J Med. 2015 Jun 4;372(23):2243-57
pubmed: 26014596
J Comput Biol. 1997 Fall;4(3):311-23
pubmed: 9278062
J Clin Oncol. 2017 Jul 10;35(20):2232-2239
pubmed: 28402748
PLoS Genet. 2018 Mar 5;14(3):e1007231
pubmed: 29505604
Front Oncol. 2018 Jul 27;8:286
pubmed: 30101128
JAMA Oncol. 2015 Apr;1(1):23-32
pubmed: 26182300
Nature. 2018 Oct;562(7726):217-222
pubmed: 30209399
Eur J Hum Genet. 2017 Oct;25(10):1147-1154
pubmed: 28905878
Nucleic Acids Res. 2009 May;37(9):e67
pubmed: 19339519
Genet Med. 2019 Jul;21(7):1629-1638
pubmed: 30467404
N Engl J Med. 2015 Oct 29;373(18):1697-708
pubmed: 26510020
Nat Genet. 2018 Jun;50(6):874-882
pubmed: 29785012
Genet Med. 2019 Aug 13;:null
pubmed: 31406321
Gastroenterology. 2015 Sep;149(3):777-82; quiz e16-7
pubmed: 26226577
BMC Bioinformatics. 2010 Jan 12;11:22
pubmed: 20067640
Nat Commun. 2017 Jun 12;8:15824
pubmed: 28604674
Nat Med. 2017 Apr;23(4):517-525
pubmed: 28288110

Auteurs

Rachid Karam (R)

Ambry Genetics, Aliso Viejo, California.

Blair Conner (B)

Ambry Genetics, Aliso Viejo, California.

Holly LaDuca (H)

Ambry Genetics, Aliso Viejo, California.

Kelly McGoldrick (K)

Ambry Genetics, Aliso Viejo, California.

Kate Krempely (K)

Ambry Genetics, Aliso Viejo, California.

Marcy E Richardson (ME)

Ambry Genetics, Aliso Viejo, California.

Heather Zimmermann (H)

Ambry Genetics, Aliso Viejo, California.

Stephanie Gutierrez (S)

Ambry Genetics, Aliso Viejo, California.

Patrick Reineke (P)

Ambry Genetics, Aliso Viejo, California.

Lily Hoang (L)

Ambry Genetics, Aliso Viejo, California.

Kyle Allen (K)

Ambry Genetics, Aliso Viejo, California.

Amal Yussuf (A)

Ambry Genetics, Aliso Viejo, California.

Suzette Farber-Katz (S)

Ambry Genetics, Aliso Viejo, California.
now with Merck Research Laboratories, South San Francisco, California.

Huma Q Rana (HQ)

Department of Medicine, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts.

Samantha Culver (S)

Department of Medicine, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts.

John Lee (J)

Samuel Oschin Comprehensive Cancer Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California.

Sarah Nashed (S)

Division of Medical Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick.

Deborah Toppmeyer (D)

Division of Medical Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick.

Debra Collins (D)

University of Kansas Cancer Center, Westwood.

Ginger Haynes (G)

Ambry Genetics, Aliso Viejo, California.

Tina Pesaran (T)

Ambry Genetics, Aliso Viejo, California.

Jill S Dolinsky (JS)

Ambry Genetics, Aliso Viejo, California.

Brigette Tippin Davis (B)

Ambry Genetics, Aliso Viejo, California.

Aaron Elliott (A)

Ambry Genetics, Aliso Viejo, California.

Elizabeth Chao (E)

Ambry Genetics, Aliso Viejo, California.
Department of Pediatrics, School of Medicine, University of California, Irvine.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH