Claus, Elizabeth B.

Abstract Next-generation sequencing has transformed cancer care by providing essential insights for diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment. However, variability in testing timing, reporting practices, and interpretation challenges limits its clinical impact. This article highlights key opportunities to optimize somatic reporting, emphasizing the importance of timely testing throughout the cancer care continuum to maximize the diagnostic and therapeutic relevance of findings. Technical factors such as test design, sequencing depth, and the use of liquid biopsy substantially influence result accuracy and interpretation, underscoring the need for careful integration with clinical history. Standardized reporting practices that clearly delineate diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic findings can enhance the clinical utility of next-generation sequencing results. Streamlined formats and curated clinical trial data further support actionable decision making. Additionally, direct patient engagement and education are essential for empowering patients to navigate genomic testing and make informed decisions about their care. By leveraging multidisciplinary tumor boards, decision-support tools, and emerging artificial intelligence technologies, clinicians can better navigate the complexities of somatic reports. Standardization and clarity in reporting are critical to advancing precision oncology, empowering providers and patients to make informed treatment decisions and improve outcomes.

Abstract Background: Engaging diverse populations in cancer genomics research is of critical importance and is a fundamental goal of the NCI Participant Engagement and Cancer Genome Sequencing (PE-CGS) Network. Established as part of the Cancer Moonshot, PE-CGS is a consortium of stakeholders including clinicians, scientists, genetic counselors, and representatives of potential study participants and their communities. Participant engagement is an ongoing, bidirectional, and mutually beneficial interaction between study participants and researchers. PE-CGS sought to set priorities in participant engagement for conducting the network's research. Methods: PE-CGS deliberatively engaged its stakeholders in the following four-phase process to set the network's research priorities in participant engagement: (i) a brainstorming exercise to elicit potential priorities; (ii) a 2-day virtual meeting to discuss priorities; (iii) recommendations from the PE-CGS External Advisory Panel to refine priorities; and (iv) a virtual meeting to set priorities. Results: Nearly 150 PE-CGS stakeholders engaged in the process. Five priorities were set: (i) tailor education and communication materials for participants throughout the research process; (ii) identify measures of participant engagement; (iii) identify optimal participant engagement strategies; (iv) understand cancer disparities in the context of cancer genomics research; and (v) personalize the return of genomics findings to participants. Conclusions: PE-CGS is pursuing these priorities to meaningfully engage diverse and underrepresented patients with cancer and posttreatment cancer survivors as participants in cancer genomics research and, subsequently, generate new discoveries. Impact: Data from PE-CGS will be shared with the broader scientific community in a manner consistent with participant informed consent and community agreement.

Abstract Background Mendelian randomization (MR) studies are susceptible to metadata errors (e.g. incorrect specification of the effect allele column) and other analytical issues that can introduce substantial bias into analyses. We developed a quality control (QC) pipeline for the Fatty Acids in Cancer Mendelian Randomization Collaboration (FAMRC) that can be used to identify and correct for such errors. Methods We collated summary association statistics from fatty acid and cancer genome-wide association studies (GWAS) and subjected the collated data to a comprehensive QC pipeline. We identified metadata errors through comparison of study-specific statistics to external reference data sets (the National Human Genome Research Institute-European Bioinformatics Institute GWAS catalogue and 1000 genome super populations) and other analytical issues through comparison of reported to expected genetic effect sizes. Comparisons were based on three sets of genetic variants: (i) GWAS hits for fatty acids, (ii) GWAS hits for cancer and (iii) a 1000 genomes reference set. Results We collated summary data from 6 fatty acid and 54 cancer GWAS. Metadata errors and analytical issues with the potential to introduce substantial bias were identified in seven studies (11.6%). After resolving metadata errors and analytical issues, we created a data set of 219 842 genetic associations with 90 cancer types, generated in analyses of 566 665 cancer cases and 1 622 374 controls. Conclusions In this large MR collaboration, 11.6% of included studies were affected by a substantial metadata error or analytical issue. By increasing the integrity of collated summary data prior to their analysis, our protocol can be used to increase the reliability of downstream MR analyses. Our pipeline is available to other researchers via the CheckSumStats package (https://github.com/MRCIEU/CheckSumStats).

Abstract Background The etiological basis of glioma is poorly understood. We have used genetic markers in a Mendelian Randomisation (MR) framework to examine if lifestyle, cardiometabolic and inflammatory factors influence the risk of glioma. This methodology reduces bias from confounding and is not affected by reverse causation. Methods We identified genetic instruments for 37 potentially modifiable risk factors and evaluated their association with glioma risk using data from a genome-wide association study of 12,488 glioma patients and 18,169 controls. We used the estimated odds ratio of glioma associated with each of the genetically defined traits to infer evidence for a causal relationship with the following exposures: lifestyle and dietary factors (height, plasma IGF-1, blood carnitine, blood methionine, blood selenium, blood zinc, circulating adiponectin, circulating carotenoids, iron status, serum calcium, vitamin [A1, B12, B6, E and 25-hydroxyvitamin D], fatty acids levels [mono-unsaturated, omega-3 and omega-6] and circulating fetuin-A); cardiometabolic factors (birth weight, HDL cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, total cholesterol, total triglycerides, basal metabolic rate, body fat percentage, body mass index, fasting glucose, fasting proinsulin, HbA1C levels, diastolic and systolic blood pressure, waist circumference, waist-to-hip ratio) were included; inflammatory factors (C-reactive protein (CRP), plasma IL-6 sRa and serum IgE). Results After correction for the testing of multiple potential risk factors and excluding associations driven by one single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) no significant association with glioma risk was observed (i.e. PCorrected > 0.05). Conclusions This study did not provide evidence supporting any of the 37 factors examined as having a significant influence on glioma risk.

Abstract BACKGROUND: Approximately 5% of gliomas occur in individuals with a family history of glioma, and first-degree relatives of brain tumor cases have a two-fold increase in risk of brain tumor. Recent somatic characterization has shown that tumors from familial cases are indistinguishable from sporadic cases, suggesting that familial cases may arise through similar mechanisms of gliomagenesis, and therefore may be associated with common variants as well as rare mutations. In this analysis, we assessed whether previously identified common risk variants are associated with familial glioma. METHODS: Data were obtained from the Glioma International Case Control (GICC) and Gliogene studies for 448 cases with reported family history, 4,405 cases without reported family history, and 3,288 controls. We assessed 25 risk loci previously identified by glioma GWAS, and odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) were calculated using an additive genetic logistic regression model adjusted for age, sex, and the first two principal components for familial cases versus unaffected controls, and non-familial cases versus controls. Results were considered significant at p<0.002 (Bonferroni correction for 25 tests). RESULTS: Significant associations were detected at 5/25 loci, including TERT, EGFR, CCDC26, CDKN2B, and RTEL1. The strongest association was at rs55705857 (CCDC26, OR=2.7, p=7.49x10-17). For GBM (222 familial cases), significant associations were detected at 6/26 loci (TERT, EGFR, CDKN2B, TP53 and RTEL1), while in non-GBM (205 familial cases) significant associations were detected at 3/25 loci (LRIG1, CCDC26, PHLDB1). These SNPs were further examined using a case-only approach comparing familial to non-familial cases, and there was no significant difference in allele frequencies by family history status. There was a strong correlation between log(OR) for familial cases only versus non-familial cases (adjusted R2=0.88). CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis we identified a significant association between familial glioma and five common risk loci previously identified by glioma GWAS. This provides further evidence of shared pathways of genetic risk and gliomagenesis between familial and non-familial glioma. Further exploration is necessary to determine the overall contribution of common genetic variation to risk of familial glioma. Citation Format: Quinn T. Ostrom, Georgina Armstrong, Christopher I. Amos, Jonine L. Bernstein, Elizabeth B. Claus, Jeanette E. Eckel-Passow, Dora Il'yasova, Christoffer Johansen, Daniel H. Lachance, Rose K. Lai, Ryan T. Merrell, Sara H. Olson, Joellen H. Schildkraut, Sanjay S. Shete, Richard S. Houlston, Robert B. Jenkins, Margaret R. Wrensch, Beatrice Melin, Jill S. Barnholtz-Sloan, Melissa L. Bondy. Previously identified common glioma risk SNPs are associated with familial glioma [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2019; 2019 Mar 29-Apr 3; Atlanta, GA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(13 Suppl):Abstract nr 4173.

Glioma incidence is highest in non‐Hispanic Whites, and to date, glioma genome‐wide association studies (GWAS) to date have only included European ancestry (EA) populations. African Americans and Hispanics in the US have varying proportions of EA, African (AA) and Native American ancestries (NAA). It is unknown if identified GWAS loci or increased EA is associated with increased glioma risk. We assessed whether EA was associated with glioma in African Americans and Hispanics. Data were obtained for 832 cases and 675 controls from the Glioma International Case–Control Study and GliomaSE Case–Control Study previously estimated to have <80% EA, or self‐identify as non‐White. We estimated global and local ancestry using fastStructure and RFMix, respectively, using 1,000 genomes project reference populations. Within groups with ≥40% AA (AFR ≥0.4 ), and ≥15% NAA (AMR ≥0.15 ), genome‐wide association between local EA and glioma was evaluated using logistic regression conditioned on global EA for all gliomas. We identified two regions (7q21.11, p = 6.36 × 10 −4 ; 11p11.12, p = 7.0 × 10 −4 ) associated with increased EA, and one associated with decreased EA (20p12.13, p = 0.0026) in AFR ≥0.4 . In addition, we identified a peak at rs1620291 ( p = 4.36 × 10 −6 ) in 7q21.3. Among AMR ≥0.15 , we found an association between increased EA in one region (12q24.21, p = 8.38 × 10 −4 ), and decreased EA in two regions (8q24.21, p = 0. 0010; 20q13.33, p = 6.36 × 10 −4 ). No other significant associations were identified. This analysis identified an association between glioma and two regions previously identified in EA populations (8q24.21, 20q13.33) and four novel regions (7q21.11, 11p11.12, 12q24.21 and 20p12.13). The identifications of novel association with EA suggest regions to target for future genetic association studies.

Abstract Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have so far identified 25 loci associated with glioma risk, with most showing specificity for either glioblastoma (GBM) or non-GBM tumors. The majority of these GWAS susceptibility variants reside in noncoding regions and the causal genes underlying the associations are largely unknown. Here we performed a transcriptome-wide association study to search for novel risk loci and candidate causal genes at known GWAS loci using Genotype-Tissue Expression Project (GTEx) data to predict cis-predicted gene expression in relation to GBM and non-GBM risk in conjunction with GWAS summary statistics on 12,488 glioma cases (6,183 GBM and 5,820 non-GBM) and 18,169 controls. Imposing a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of P &lt; 5.69 × 10−6, we identified 31 genes, including GALNT6 at 12q13.33, as a candidate novel risk locus for GBM (mean Z = 4.43; P = 5.68 × 10−6). GALNT6 resides at least 55 Mb away from any previously identified glioma risk variant, while all other 30 significantly associated genes were located within 1 Mb of known GWAS-identified loci and were not significant after conditioning on the known GWAS-identified variants. These data identify a novel locus (GALNT6 at 12q13.33) and 30 genes at 12 known glioma risk loci associated with glioma risk, providing further insights into glioma tumorigenesis. Significance: This study identifies new genes associated with glioma risk, increasing understanding of how these tumors develop.

Abstract Background: There have been few studies of sufficient size to address the relationship between glioma risk and the use of aspirin or NSAIDs, and results have been conflicting. The purpose of this study was to examine the associations between glioma and aspirin/NSAID use, and to aggregate these findings with prior published studies using meta-analysis. Methods: The Glioma International Case-Control Study (GICC) consists of 4,533 glioma cases and 4,171 controls recruited from 2010 to 2013. Interviews were conducted using a standardized questionnaire to obtain information on aspirin/NSAID use. We examined history of regular use for ≥6 months and duration-response. Restricted maximum likelihood meta-regression models were used to aggregate site-specific estimates, and to combine GICC estimates with previously published studies. Results: A history of daily aspirin use for ≥6 months was associated with a 38% lower glioma risk, compared with not having a history of daily use [adjusted meta-OR = 0.62; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.54–0.70]. There was a significant duration-response trend (P = 1.67 × 10−17), with lower ORs for increasing duration of aspirin use. Duration-response trends were not observed for NSAID use. In the meta-analysis aggregating GICC data with five previous studies, there was a marginally significant association between use of aspirin and glioma (mOR = 0.84; 95% CI, 0.70–1.02), but no association for NSAID use. Conclusions: Our study suggests that aspirin may be associated with a reduced risk of glioma. Impact: These results imply that aspirin use may be associated with decreased glioma risk. Further research examining the association between aspirin use and glioma risk is warranted.