The discrepancy of somatic BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants from two different platforms in epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal cancer.
Humans
Female
BRCA1 Protein
/ genetics
BRCA2 Protein
/ genetics
Middle Aged
Carcinoma, Ovarian Epithelial
/ genetics
Peritoneal Neoplasms
/ genetics
Ovarian Neoplasms
/ genetics
Fallopian Tube Neoplasms
/ genetics
Aged
Adult
High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing
/ methods
Mutation
Biomarkers, Tumor
/ genetics
BRCA
Genetic profiling
HRD
Ovarian cancer
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
29 10 2024
29 10 2024
Historique:
received:
13
08
2024
accepted:
03
10
2024
medline:
29
10
2024
pubmed:
29
10
2024
entrez:
29
10
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The somatic BRCA1 or BRCA2 Pathogenic Variant (PV)/Likely PV (LPV) from Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) is the most important biomarker for PARP inhibitor use and maintenance-targeted therapies. A discrepancy in the detection rates of BRCA1 and BRCA2 PV/LPV was identified among the NGS platforms. The objective of this study was to compare the somatic BRCA results from two distinct platforms using the same cohort and to identify the causes of these differences. Patients with epithelial ovarian cancer who concurrently underwent tumor NGS using two different platforms between January 2022 and June 2023 were included in this study. The two platforms used were in-house tumor NGS (Illumina NextSeq 550Dx, SureSelectXT library kit, and datasets from 1000 Genomes, ESP6500, ExAC, and ClinVar) and GreenPlan homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) test (Illumina NextSeq 550Dx, customized Twist Bioscience library kit, and datasets from COSMIC and OncoKB). The results of somatic mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 were compared between the two platforms. Of the 118 patients, 11.9% (n = 14) exhibited a discordant interpretation of BRCA1 or BRCA2 between the two platforms. Eleven patients (9.3%) exhibited negative results in the in-house platform but positive results (eight seven as PV of BRCA1, one as PV of BRCA2, one as LPV of BRCA1, and two as LPV of BRCA2) in the GreenPlan HRD test, while three patients (2.6%) had positive BRCA pathogenic variants (two as PV of BRCA1 [c.3340G > T, c.5152 + 3 A > C], one as LPV of BRCA2 [c.8174G > T], and one as LPV of BRCA1 [c.5017_5019delCAC]) in the in-house platform but a negative result in the GreenPlan HRD test. The discordance rate of somatic BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations from different platforms was approximately 12%. In the case of the strong implication of BRCA PV/LPV with a negative result with one genetic test, different platforms could be considered in limited cases. Careful interpretation and further studies for the cross-validation of gene analysis platforms are needed.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39468117
doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-75230-6
pii: 10.1038/s41598-024-75230-6
doi:
Substances chimiques
BRCA1 Protein
0
BRCA2 Protein
0
BRCA1 protein, human
0
BRCA2 protein, human
0
Biomarkers, Tumor
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
25879Subventions
Organisme : Korean Cancer Survivors Healthcare R&D Project through the National Cancer Center, funded by the Ministry of Health & Welfare
ID : RS-2023-CC140196
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Sung, H. et al. Global Cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J. Clin. 71, 209–249 (2021).
doi: 10.3322/caac.21660
pubmed: 33538338
Kang, M. J. et al. Cancer statistics in Korea: incidence, mortality, survival, and prevalence in 2019. Cancer Res. Treat. 54, 330–344 (2022).
doi: 10.4143/crt.2022.128
pubmed: 35313102
pmcid: 9016309
Venkitaraman, A. R. Cancer susceptibility and the functions of BRCA1 and BRCA2. Cell. 108, 171–182 (2002).
doi: 10.1016/S0092-8674(02)00615-3
pubmed: 11832208
Jazaeri, A. A. Molecular profiles of hereditary epithelial ovarian cancers and their implications for the biology of this disease. Mol. Oncol. 3, 151–156 (2009).
doi: 10.1016/j.molonc.2009.01.001
pubmed: 19383376
pmcid: 5527878
Eccles, D. M. et al. Selecting patients with ovarian Cancer for germline BRCA mutation testing: findings from guidelines and a systematic literature review. Adv. Ther. 33, 129–150 (2016).
doi: 10.1007/s12325-016-0281-1
pubmed: 26809252
Bristow, R. E., Tomacruz, R. S., Armstrong, D. K., Trimble, E. L. & Montz, F. J. Survival effect of maximal cytoreductive surgery for advanced ovarian carcinoma during the platinum era: a meta-analysis. J. Clin. Oncol. 20, 1248–1259 (2002).
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2002.20.5.1248
pubmed: 11870167
Vergote, I. et al. Clinical research in ovarian cancer: consensus recommendations from the Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup. Lancet Oncol. 23, e374–e84 (2022).
doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(22)00139-5
pubmed: 35901833
pmcid: 9465953
Banerjee, S. et al. Maintenance olaparib for patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation (SOLO1/GOG 3004): 5-year follow-up of a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 22, 1721–1731 (2021).
doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00531-3
pubmed: 34715071
Farmer, H. et al. Targeting the DNA repair defect in BRCA mutant cells as a therapeutic strategy. Nature. 434, 917–921 (2005).
doi: 10.1038/nature03445
pubmed: 15829967
Konstantinopoulos, P. A. et al. Germline and somatic tumor testing in epithelial ovarian Cancer: ASCO Guideline. J. Clin. Oncol. 38, 1222–1245 (2020).
doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.02960
pubmed: 31986064
Suh, D. H. et al. Practice guidelines for management of ovarian cancer in Korea: a Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology Consensus Statement. J. Gynecol. Oncol. 29, e56 (2018).
doi: 10.3802/jgo.2018.29.e56
pubmed: 29770626
pmcid: 5981107
Bekos, C. et al. Reliability of Tumor Testing Compared to Germline Testing for Detecting BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutations in Patients with Epithelial Ovarian Cancer. J. Pers. Med. 11(7) 593 (2021).
Quy, P. N. et al. Inter-assay variability of next-generation sequencing-based gene panels. BMC Med. Genomics. 15, 86 (2022).
doi: 10.1186/s12920-022-01230-y
pubmed: 35428255
pmcid: 9013031
Maekawa, M. et al. Precision cancer genome testing needs proficiency testing involving all stakeholders. Sci. Rep. 12, 1494 (2022).
doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-05589-x
pubmed: 35087199
pmcid: 8795413
Rivera, D. et al. Implementing NGS-based BRCA tumour tissue testing in FFPE ovarian carcinoma specimens: hints from a real-life experience within the framework of expert recommendations. J. Clin. Pathol. 74, 596–603 (2021).
doi: 10.1136/jclinpath-2020-206840
pubmed: 32895300
Trujillano, D. et al. Next-generation sequencing of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes for the genetic diagnostics of hereditary breast and/or ovarian cancer. J. Mol. Diagn. 17, 162–170 (2015).
doi: 10.1016/j.jmoldx.2014.11.004
pubmed: 25556971
Hess, J. F. et al. Library preparation for next generation sequencing: a review of automation strategies. Biotechnol. Adv. 41, 107537 (2020).
doi: 10.1016/j.biotechadv.2020.107537
pubmed: 32199980
Kim, Y. et al. Comparison of Homologous Recombination Repair Gene Next-Generation Sequencing Analysis in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate Cancer between Local and Central Laboratories in Korea. Ann. Lab. Med. 43, 64–72 (2023).
doi: 10.3343/alm.2023.43.1.64
pubmed: 36045058
Forbes, S. A. et al. COSMIC: exploring the world’s knowledge of somatic mutations in human cancer. Nucleic Acids Res. 43, D805–D811 (2015).
doi: 10.1093/nar/gku1075
pubmed: 25355519
Chakravarty, D. et al. OncoKB: A Precision Oncology Knowledge Base. JCO Precis Oncol 2017 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1200/PO.17.00011
Landrum, M. J. et al. ClinVar: public archive of interpretations of clinically relevant variants. Nucleic Acids Res. 44, D862–D868 (2016).
doi: 10.1093/nar/gkv1222
pubmed: 26582918
Genomes Project, C. et al. A global reference for human genetic variation. Nature. 526, 68–74 (2015).
doi: 10.1038/nature15393
Karczewski, K. J. et al. The ExAC browser: displaying reference data information from over 60 000 exomes. Nucleic Acids Res. 45, D840–D5 (2017).
doi: 10.1093/nar/gkw971
pubmed: 27899611
Li, M. M. et al. Standards and guidelines for the interpretation and reporting of sequence variants in Cancer: a Joint Consensus Recommendation of the Association for Molecular Pathology, American Society of Clinical Oncology, and College of American Pathologists. J. Mol. Diagn. 19, 4–23 (2017).
doi: 10.1016/j.jmoldx.2016.10.002
pubmed: 27993330
pmcid: 5707196
Hatakeyama, K. et al. Tumor cell enrichment by tissue suspension enables detection of mutations with low variant allele frequency and estimation of germline mutations. Sci. Rep. 12, 2953 (2022).
doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-06885-2
pubmed: 35194076
pmcid: 8863826
Tew, W. P., Lacchetti, C. & Kohn, E. C. Panel PIitMoOCGE. Poly(ADP-Ribose) polymerase inhibitors in the management of Ovarian Cancer: ASCO Guideline Rapid Recommendation Update. J. Clin. Oncol. 40, 3878–3881 (2022).
doi: 10.1200/JCO.22.01934
pubmed: 36150092
Ray-Coquard, I. et al. Olaparib plus Bevacizumab as First-Line maintenance in Ovarian Cancer. N Engl. J. Med. 381, 2416–2428 (2019).
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1911361
pubmed: 31851799