Merker, Jason D.

Abstract Background Reference sets are needed to evaluate performance of multi-cancer detection (MCD) assays. The National Cancer Institute funded the Alliance reference set study to assess MCDs for use in future trials. Methods Individuals with cancer and controls were recruited; blood specimens were collected prior to cancer treatment. A performance evaluation study was designed utilizing reference set samples. Companies (n = 6) were selected to participate based on review of performance data and ability to utilize the blood collection tube. Companies received samples from cancer types their assay was designed to detect (“targeted”), plus additional “non-targeted” and control samples. Companies reported positive/negative calls, risk scores, and tissue-of-origin (TOO) predictions. Sensitivity was computed for early (I-II) and late (III-IV) stage cases, based on positive/negative calls (SEPN) and at fixed 98% specificity (SE98). Specificity and TOO accuracy were computed. Results Five hundred and forty nine cases (encompassing 13 cancer types) and 413 controls from the reference set were included in the study. Companies assessed samples from median 6 (range 5-9) targeted cancer types and median 8 (range: 7-11) overall cancer types. Median (range) specificity was 92.3% (76.5%-98.5%). Median (range) SEPN was 32% (25%-42%) for early stage and 73% (48%-89%) for late stage; while median (range) SE98 was 19% (8%-35%) for early stage and 66% (13%-79%) for late stage. Median sensitivity for non-targeted types was 40% (early stage) and 52% (late stage). Median (range) TOO accuracy (primary predicted site) was 75% (64%-78%). Conclusions Sensitivity and specificity varied widely across assays with early-stage sensitivity substantially lower than late-stage sensitivity. Clinical Trial Registration Number ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT05334069.

Sonic hedgehog signaling regulates processes of embryonic development across multiple tissues, yet factors regulating context-specific Shh signaling remain poorly understood. Exome sequencing of families with polymicrogyria (disordered cortical folding) revealed multiple individuals with biallelic deleterious variants in TMEM161B , which encodes a multi-pass transmembrane protein of unknown function. Tmem161b null mice demonstrated holoprosencephaly, craniofacial midline defects, eye defects, and spinal cord patterning changes consistent with impaired Shh signaling, but were without limb defects, suggesting a CNS-specific role of Tmem161b. Tmem161b depletion impaired the response to Smoothened activation in vitro and disrupted cortical histogenesis in vivo in both mouse and ferret models, including leading to abnormal gyration in the ferret model. Tmem161b localizes non-exclusively to the primary cilium, and scanning electron microscopy revealed shortened, dysmorphic, and ballooned ventricular zone cilia in the Tmem161b null mouse, suggesting that the Shh-related phenotypes may reflect ciliary dysfunction. Our data identify TMEM161B as a regulator of cerebral cortical gyration, as involved in primary ciliary structure, as a regulator of Shh signaling, and further implicate Shh signaling in human gyral development.

Context.— Clinical testing for tumor cell-free DNA (cfDNA) has evolved rapidly, but no practice guidelines exist. Objective.— To summarize cfDNA laboratory practices based on self-reporting and assess preanalytical, analytical, and postanalytical trends that may influence the quality, accuracy, and consistency of cfDNA testing. Design.— Data were derived from the College of American Pathologists cfDNA proficiency testing program submitted by 101 participating laboratories from 2018 to 2019. Results.— Most laboratories performing clinical circulating tumor DNA testing are commercial/nonhospital (71.2%; 72 of 101) and international (77.2%; 78 of 101) laboratories. Commercial laboratories had higher monthly test volumes than hospital-based laboratories (median, 36 versus 7–8) and tended to have larger gene panels (median, 50 versus 11 genes) when panel-based testing was offered. The main clinical indications include therapy selection and treatment/disease monitoring. Plasma is the most commonly accepted specimen, which is predominantly collected in cell-stabilizing tubes. Equal proportions of laboratories use next-generation sequencing (NGS) and non-NGS methods to assess key genes, including EGFR, BRAF, KRAS, NRAS, and IDH1. Most laboratories reported a lower limit of detection (LLOD) of 0.5%, variant allele frequency or less, which did not differ by method, NGS or non-NGS, except for EGFR. Sixty-five percent (17 of 26) of laboratories using the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved non-NGS EGFR assay report analytical sensitivities higher than 0.5%, as compared to 15% (16 of 104) of laboratories using an alternative NGS or non-NGS method. There is also a wider range in LLODs obtained for the FDA-approved EGFR assay than nonapproved assays. Conclusions.— These results highlight emerging practice trends and serve as a foundation to initiate future practice recommendations.

Abstract The basis for acquired resistance to JAK inhibition in patients with JAK2-driven hematologic malignancies is not well understood. We report a patient with a myeloproliferative neoplasm (MPN) with a BCR activator of RhoGEF and GTPase (BCR)–JAK2 fusion with initial hematologic response to ruxolitinib who rapidly developed B-lymphoid blast transformation. We analyzed pre-ruxolitinib and blast transformation samples using genome sequencing, DNA mate-pair sequencing (MPseq), RNA sequencing (RNA-seq), and chromosomal microarray to characterize possible mechanisms of resistance. No resistance mutations in the BCR-JAK2 fusion gene or transcript were identified, and fusion transcript expression levels remained stable. However, at the time of blast transformation, MPseq detected a new IKZF1 copy-number loss, which is predicted to result in loss of normal IKZF1 protein translation. RNA-seq revealed significant upregulation of genes negatively regulated by IKZF1, including IL7R and CRLF2. Disease progression was also characterized by adaptation to an activated B-cell receptor (BCR)–like signaling phenotype, with marked upregulation of genes such as CD79A, CD79B, IGLL1, VPREB1, BLNK, ZAP70, RAG1, and RAG2. In summary, IKZF1 deletion and a switch from cytokine dependence to activated BCR-like signaling phenotype represent putative mechanisms of ruxolitinib resistance in this case, recapitulating preclinical data on resistance to JAK inhibition in CRLF2-rearranged Philadelphia chromosome-like acute lymphoblastic leukemia.

Abstract The Clinical Genome (ClinGen) Resource is a US National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI)-funded program dedicated to building an expert curated and freely available central resource that defines the clinical relevance of genes and variants for use in precision medicine. Teams of experts in various clinical domains come together as working groups within ClinGen to facilitate the interpretation, annotation and utilization of genes-variants for clinical application. Somatic Cancer is one such ClinGen Clinical Domain Working Group (CDWG) that consists of over 90 members worldwide, including clinicians, clinical laboratory diagnosticians, genomic scientists and bioinformaticians. Members of this CDWG identify high priority somatic variants in different cancer types that require expert curation and consensus in their clinical interpretation. In order to accurately implement practice guidelines/standards for variant interpretation, the Somatic Cancer CDWG recently established a somatic Variant Curation Expert Panel (VCEP) approval process. Based on their interest and clinical domain expertise, a subset of the CDWG members formed somatic VCEPs to perform authoritative curation on the shortlisted genes-somatic variants within the context of a disease, therapeutic indication or biological pathway. Expert curation within these VCEPs is performed by utilizing guidelines such as those recommended by AMP/ASCO/CAP (Li et al. 2017) and the Somatic Cancer CDWG (Ritter et al. 2016). Wherever necessary, the somatic VCEPs will develop: 1) gene- and disease-specific modifications to address gaps in existing variant assessment guidelines, 2) quantitative approaches for variant interpretation, and 3) implement standardized protocols for annotating somatic variants in genes for a specific disease, drug or biological pathway. Furthermore, ClinGen recently formed the Cancer Variant Interpretation (CVI) committee to provide support, review and feedback on the provisional somatic variant interpretation proposals developed by the VCEPs. The CVI provides somatic VCEPs with a preliminary approval before the final approval by the ClinGen CDWG oversight committee and ultimately ‘expert panel' status in ClinVar, an NCBI-maintained database of clinically relevant gene variants. NTRK fusions in cancer is the first Somatic VCEP going through the ClinGen Somatic Expert Panel approval process. Alterations in the FGFR pathway in GU cancers is the second somatic VCEP under consideration. The Somatic CDWG uses the CIViC (Clinical Interpretation of Variants in Cancer) platform for curation of somatic variants. To date, the CDWG has curated 268 evidence items relating to cancer variants in CIViC, 6 assertions, and 33 evidence source suggestions. The ultimate goal of the Somatic CDWG is to enhance the usability, dissemination and implementation of cancer somatic changes in the ClinGen resource and other cancer variant knowledgebases. Citation Format: Shruti Rao, Deborah Ritter, Arpad Danos, Gordana Raca, Angshumoy Roy, Kilannin Krysiak, Wan-Hsin Lin, Erica Barnell, Matthew McCoy, Beth Pitel, Dmitriy Sonkin, Jue Wang, Seyed Ali Hosseini, Shamini Selvarajah, Ian King, Rashmi Kanagal-Shamana, Xinjie Xu, Jeremy L. Warner, Funda Meric-Bernstam, Jason D. Merker, Marilyn Li, Alex H. Wagner, Malachi Griffith, Obi L. Griffith, Shashikant Kulkarni, Subha Madhavan. ClinGen somatic cancer working group: Disseminating standardized cancer molecular diagnostic data and evidence through global collaboration and expert curation [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research 2020; 2020 Apr 27-28 and Jun 22-24. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(16 Suppl):Abstract nr 3215.

e13681 Background: Cell-free tumor DNA or circulating tumor DNA tests are increasingly used in clinical care to detect somatic mutations from solid tumors. However, data on laboratory performance characteristics using standardized samples is limited. Methods: Well-characterized reference materials were used for the College of American Pathologists (CAP) cell-free tumor DNA proficiency testing surveys, which consisted of stabilized DNA fragmented to simulate cell-free DNA in a synthetic plasma matrix. For the 2018A, 2018B, 2019A and 2019B surveys, laboratories tested for hotspot mutations (single and dinucleotide sequence changes) in EGFR, BRAF, KRAS, NRAS, and IDH1 at variant allele fractions ranging from 0.1% - 1.0%. As per CAP proficiency testing standards, results were scored according to the known mutation(s) engineered at designated variant allele fractions in each PT sample. Nine laboratories were excluded from analysis because they provided incomplete results. Statistical significance was calculated using a multivariate logistic regression model. Results: In 2018 and 2019, 101 laboratories submitted survey results for at least one proficiency testing mailing. There were 5088 total proficiency testing responses for EGFR, BRAF, KRAS, NRAS, and IDH1 mutations across 12 different samples. For the 3585 responses submitted for BRAF, KRAS, NRAS, and IDH1, sensitivity ranged from 94.6 – 100%, while specificity exceeded 99%. There were no significant differences in performance between analytical methodologies for BRAF, KRAS, NRAS, and IDH1 mutations. Performance characteristics for EGFR mutations among the 1503 responses showed a combined sensitivity of 87.1% and specificity of 98.7%. For laboratories detecting mutations in EGFR, next-generation sequencing methods exhibited a sensitivity (true positivity) of 95.7% while the sensitivity of non-NGS methods was lower at 81.7% ( P= 0.02). Conclusions: These findings demonstrate high sensitivity and specificity for clinical laboratories performing cell-free tumor DNA tests. For EGFR mutations, NGS outperformed non-NGS methods. These data suggest excellent overall agreement among laboratories performing clinical cell-free tumor DNA tests. Further investigation across variant allele fractions and additional variant types is warranted.