Clinical Utility of Molecular Tumor Board Review for Identification of Possible Germline Pathogenic Variants on Tumor Next-Generation Sequencing Reports.

IF 5.3 2区 医学 Q1 ONCOLOGY
Taylor A Rives, James Collard, Ning Li, Donglin Yan, Charles S Dietrich, Rachel W Miller, Frederick R Ueland, Justine Pickarski, Jill M Kolesar
{"title":"Clinical Utility of Molecular Tumor Board Review for Identification of Possible Germline Pathogenic Variants on Tumor Next-Generation Sequencing Reports.","authors":"Taylor A Rives, James Collard, Ning Li, Donglin Yan, Charles S Dietrich, Rachel W Miller, Frederick R Ueland, Justine Pickarski, Jill M Kolesar","doi":"10.1200/PO.24.00301","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Tumor next-generation sequencing (NGS) testing identifies possible germline pathogenic variants (PGPVs), creating a dilemma for appropriate recognition, triage, and management. The objective of this study was to determine the clinical utility of an institutional molecular tumor board (MTB) in assessing tumor NGS reports for PGPVs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Our institutional MTB reviews all NGS reports to provide treatment and further testing recommendations, including genetic counseling referral and consideration of genetic testing (GC/GT). We studied the patients reviewed by the MTB who were recommended for GC/GT to determine the frequency of referral to a GC, germline test completion, rate of pathogenic germline variants (PGVs), factors related to PGVs, and germline conversion rate (GCR).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 2,355 patients reviewed by the MTB during the study period, 609 (25.9%) had a recommendation for GC/GT. Of the 609 with a GC/GT recommendation, only 181 (29.7%) were referred for GC/GT by their treating physicians, and only 107 (17.6%) completed GT. Of the 107 patients completing GT, 29 (26%) had a confirmed PGV. The only factors significantly associated with PGVs were testing due to a PGPV and higher mean variant allele fraction on the tumor NGS. Only 40 patients with a GC/GT recommendation (14.3%) due to a PGPV completed GT; however, the GCR was 42.5% (n = 17/40).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The MTB review of PGPV is clinically valuable, identifying PGPV in 12% of patients undergoing tumor NGS and a GCR of 42.5%. Rates of GC/GT completion were relatively low due to under-referral by treating physicians. Given the high GCR, the authors encourage institutional algorithms to help increase GC/GT rates for patients found to have PGPV following tumor NGS testing.</p>","PeriodicalId":14797,"journal":{"name":"JCO precision oncology","volume":"8 ","pages":"e2400301"},"PeriodicalIF":5.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11404756/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JCO precision oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1200/PO.24.00301","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Tumor next-generation sequencing (NGS) testing identifies possible germline pathogenic variants (PGPVs), creating a dilemma for appropriate recognition, triage, and management. The objective of this study was to determine the clinical utility of an institutional molecular tumor board (MTB) in assessing tumor NGS reports for PGPVs.

Methods: Our institutional MTB reviews all NGS reports to provide treatment and further testing recommendations, including genetic counseling referral and consideration of genetic testing (GC/GT). We studied the patients reviewed by the MTB who were recommended for GC/GT to determine the frequency of referral to a GC, germline test completion, rate of pathogenic germline variants (PGVs), factors related to PGVs, and germline conversion rate (GCR).

Results: Of the 2,355 patients reviewed by the MTB during the study period, 609 (25.9%) had a recommendation for GC/GT. Of the 609 with a GC/GT recommendation, only 181 (29.7%) were referred for GC/GT by their treating physicians, and only 107 (17.6%) completed GT. Of the 107 patients completing GT, 29 (26%) had a confirmed PGV. The only factors significantly associated with PGVs were testing due to a PGPV and higher mean variant allele fraction on the tumor NGS. Only 40 patients with a GC/GT recommendation (14.3%) due to a PGPV completed GT; however, the GCR was 42.5% (n = 17/40).

Conclusion: The MTB review of PGPV is clinically valuable, identifying PGPV in 12% of patients undergoing tumor NGS and a GCR of 42.5%. Rates of GC/GT completion were relatively low due to under-referral by treating physicians. Given the high GCR, the authors encourage institutional algorithms to help increase GC/GT rates for patients found to have PGPV following tumor NGS testing.

分子肿瘤委员会审查对识别肿瘤下一代测序报告中可能的种系致病变异的临床实用性。
目的:肿瘤下一代测序(NGS)检测发现了可能的种系致病变异(PGPVs),为适当的识别、分诊和管理带来了难题。本研究旨在确定机构分子肿瘤委员会(MTB)在评估肿瘤 NGS 报告中 PGPVs 的临床实用性:我们机构的 MTB 审查所有 NGS 报告,提供治疗和进一步检测建议,包括遗传咨询转诊和考虑进行基因检测 (GC/GT)。我们对经 MTB 审查并建议进行 GC/GT 的患者进行了研究,以确定转诊至 GC 的频率、种系检测完成率、致病性种系变异(PGV)率、与 PGV 相关的因素以及种系转换率(GCR):在研究期间,MTB 对 2355 名患者进行了复查,其中 609 人(25.9%)被建议进行 GC/GT。在这 609 名有 GC/GT 建议的患者中,只有 181 人(29.7%)被主治医生转诊为 GC/GT,只有 107 人(17.6%)完成了 GT。在完成 GT 的 107 名患者中,有 29 人(26%)确诊为 PGV。与 PGV 明显相关的唯一因素是 PGPV 导致的检测和肿瘤 NGS 平均变异等位基因比例较高。只有 40 名因 PGPV 而被建议进行 GC/GT 的患者(14.3%)完成了 GT;但 GCR 为 42.5%(n = 17/40):结论:MTB 对 PGPV 的审查具有临床价值,在接受肿瘤 NGS 的患者中有 12% 发现了 PGPV,GCR 为 42.5%。由于主治医生转诊不足,GC/GT 完成率相对较低。鉴于 GCR 较高,作者鼓励采用机构算法,帮助提高肿瘤 NGS 检测后发现 PGPV 患者的 GC/GT 率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.10
自引率
4.30%
发文量
363
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信