Chakravarty, Debyani

PURPOSEAn ASCO provisional clinical opinion offers timely clinical direction to ASCO's membership following publication or presentation of potentially practice-changing data from major studies. This provisional clinical opinion addresses the appropriate use of tumor genomic testing in patients with metastatic or advanced solid tumors.CLINICAL CONTEXTAn increasing number of therapies are approved to treat cancers harboring specific genomic biomarkers. However, there is a lack of clarity as to when tumor genomic sequencing should be ordered, what type of assays should be performed, and how to interpret the results for treatment selection.PROVISIONAL CLINICAL OPINIONPatients with metastatic or advanced cancer should undergo genomic sequencing in a certified laboratory if the presence of one or more specific genomic alterations has regulatory approval as biomarkers to guide the use of or exclusion from certain treatments for their disease. Multigene panel–based assays should be used if more than one biomarker-linked therapy is approved for the patient's disease. Site-agnostic approvals for any cancer with a high tumor mutation burden, mismatch repair deficiency, or neurotrophic tyrosine receptor kinase ( NTRK) fusions provide a rationale for genomic testing for all solid tumors. Multigene testing may also assist in treatment selection by identifying additional targets when there are few or no genotype-based therapy approvals for the patient's disease. For treatment planning, the clinician should consider the functional impact of the targeted alteration and expected efficacy of genomic biomarker–linked options relative to other approved or investigational treatments. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/assays-and-predictive-markers-guidelines .

Abstract Somatic variants in cancer-relevant genes are interpreted from multiple partially overlapping perspectives. When considered in discovery and translational research endeavors, it is important to determine if a particular variant observed in a gene of interest is oncogenic/pathogenic or not, as such knowledge provides the foundation on which targeted cancer treatment research is based. In contrast, clinical applications are dominated by diagnostic, prognostic, or therapeutic interpretations which in part also depends on underlying variant oncogenicity/pathogenicity. The Association for Molecular Pathology, the American Society of Clinical Oncology, and the College of American Pathologists (AMP/ASCO/CAP) have published structured somatic variant clinical interpretation guidelines which specifically address diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic implications. These guidelines have been well-received by the oncology community. Many variant knowledgebases, clinical laboratories/centers have adopted or are in the process of adopting these guidelines. The AMP/ASCO/CAP guidelines also describe different data types which are used to determine oncogenicity/pathogenicity of a variant, such as: population frequency, functional data, computational predictions, segregation, and somatic frequency. A second collaborative effort created the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Scale for Clinical Actionability of molecular Targets to provide a harmonized vocabulary that provides an evidence-based ranking system of molecular targets that supports their value as clinical targets. However, neither of these clinical guideline systems provide systematic and comprehensive procedures for aggregating population frequency, functional data, computational predictions, segregation, and somatic frequency to consistently interpret variant oncogenicity/pathogenicity, as has been published in the ACMG/AMP guidelines for interpretation of pathogenicity of germline variants. In order to address this unmet need for somatic variant oncogenicity/pathogenicity interpretation procedures, the Variant Interpretation for Cancer Consortium (VICC, a GA4GH driver project) Knowledge Curation and Interpretation Standards (KCIS) working group (WG) has developed a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) with contributions from members of ClinGen Somatic Clinical Domain WG, and ClinGen Somatic/Germline variant curation WG using an approach similar to the ACMG/AMP germline pathogenicity guidelines to categorize evidence of oncogenicity/pathogenicity as very strong, strong, moderate or supporting. This SOP enables consistent and comprehensive assessment of oncogenicity/pathogenicity of somatic variants and latest version of an SOP can be found at https://cancervariants.org/wg/kcis/. Citation Format: Peter Horak, Malachi Griffith, Arpad Danos, Beth A. Pitel, Subha Madhavan, Xuelu Liu, Jennifer Lee, Gordana Raca, Shirley Li, Alex H. Wagner, Shashikant Kulkarni, Obi L. Griffith, Debyani Chakravarty, Dmitriy Sonkin. A standard operating procedure for the interpretation of oncogenicity/pathogenicity of somatic mutations [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 5707.

Abstract Comprehensive interpretation of a patient's cancer genome is a cross-disciplinary process requiring the expertise of oncologists, molecular pathologists, genetic counselors, genomic scientists, and bioinformaticians. The Variant Interpretation for Cancer Consortium (VICC) has created a non-clinical forum for the variant interpretation process by connecting experts from multiple academic institutions and industry to create a Virtual Molecular Tumor Board (VMTB). During VICC-VMTB sessions, experts retrospectively discuss de-identified, challenging patient cases in the context of genomic interpretation guidelines to evaluate a patient's profile across several distinct components: genomic variants; disease context; therapeutic history; family history; demographic information; genomic assay information; and variant allele frequency. These components are processed through the prism of publically available knowledge and expertise of VMTB members, resulting in a broad spectrum of clinically relevant assertions about the patient's disease that may be of prognostic, diagnostic, or predictive relevance. Through these evaluations, the VICC-VMTB primarily works as a means of illuminating challenges in genomic interpretation and advancing the objectives of domain-specific VICC working groups. Examples of challenges that have been highlighted by the VICC-VMTB forum include: 1) inconsistent disease and therapy ontologies across resources are being addressed by Disease Harmonization & Drug Harmonization working groups, respectively; 2) use of machine-learning and natural language processing into clinical-grade variant interpretation are being addressed by the AI-Assisted Curation working group; 3) aggregation and harmonization of knowledgebase data into a centralized resource is being addressed by the Data Licensing and Variant Harmonization working groups; 4) inefficiencies in knowledgebase search functions are being addressed by the Search working group; 5) determination of accurate prediction of biological consequences of rare variants is being addressed by the In Silico Interpretation working group; and 6) standardization of genomic variant curation is being addressed by the Knowledge Curation and Interpretation Standards working group. These VICC working groups provide dedicated expert assemblies intended to specifically tackle these challenges, further increasing the breadth for which genomic information can be made useful in cancer variant interpretation. The VICC-VMTB has been a pertinent link between cancer genomes and clinical interpretation. We are confident VICC-VMTB will continue to be a gateway of acceleration and progress needed in the field of cancer interpretation to provide accurate and efficient answers for our patients in the future. Citation Format: Beth A. Pitel, Shruti Rao, Catherine Del Vecchio Fitz, Subha Madhavan, Rodrigo Dientsmann, Peter Horak, Ian King, Susan M. Mockus, Gordana Raca, Damian T. Rieke, Peter Rogan, Dmitriy Sonkin, David Tamborero, Ioannis S. Vlachos, Brian Walsh, Jeremy L. Warner, Malachi Griffith, Obi L. Griffith, Debyani Chakravarty, Alex H. Wagner. The Virtual Molecular Tumor Board of the Variant Interpretation for Cancer Consortium: A systematic gateway connecting cancer genome interpretation and progress in genomic knowledgebases in cancer [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 3222.

Abstract The use of clinical gene sequencing is now commonplace, and genome analysts and molecular pathologists are often tasked with the labor-intensive process of interpreting the clinical significance of large numbers of tumor variants. Numerous independent knowledgebases have been constructed to alleviate this manual burden, however these knowledgebases are non-interoperable. As a result, the analyst is left with a difficult tradeoff: for each knowledgebase used the analyst must understand the nuances particular to that resource and integrate its evidence accordingly when generating the clinical report, but for each knowledgebase omitted there is increased potential for missed findings of clinical significance.The Variant Interpretation for Cancer Consortium (VICC; cancervariants.org) was formed as a driver project of the Global Alliance for Genomics and Health (GA4GH; ga4gh.org) to address this concern. VICC members include representatives from several major somatic interpretation knowledgebases including CIViC, OncoKB, Jax-CKB, the Weill Cornell PMKB, the IRB-Barcelona Cancer Biomarkers Database, and others. Previously, the VICC built and reported on a harmonized meta-knowledgebase of 19,551 biomarker associations of harmonized variants, diseases, drugs, and evidence across the constituent resources.In that study, we analyzed the frequency with which the tumor samples from the AACR Project GENIE cohort would match to harmonized associations. Variant matches increased dramatically from 57% to 86% when broader matching to regions describing categorical variants were allowed. Unlike precise sequence variants with specified alternate alleles, categorical variants describe a collection of potential variants with a common feature, such as “V600” (non-valine alleles at the 600 residue), “Exon 20 mutations” (all non-silent mutations in exon 20), or “Gain-of-function” (hypermorphic alterations that activate or amplify gene activity). However, matching observed sequence variants to categorical variants is challenging, as the latter are typically only described as unstructured text. Here we describe the expressive and computational GA4GH Variation Representation specification (vr-spec.readthedocs.io), which we co-developed as members of the GA4GH Genomic Knowledge Standards work stream. This specification provides a schema for common, precise forms of variation (e.g. SNVs and Indels) and the method for computing identifiers from these objects. We highlight key aspects of the specification and our work to apply it to the characterization of categorical variation, showcasing the variant terminology and classification tools developed by the VICC to support this effort. These standards and tools are free, open-source, and extensible, overcoming barriers to standardized variant knowledge sharing and search. Citation Format: Alex H. Wagner, Reece K. Hart, Larry Babb, Robert R. Freimuth, Adam Coffman, Yonghao Liang, Beth Pitel, Angshumoy Roy, Matthew Brush, Jennifer Lee, Anna Lu, Thomas Coard, Shruti Rao, Deborah Ritter, Brian Walsh, Susan Mockus, Peter Horak, Ian King, Dmitriy Sonkin, Subha Madhavan, Gordana Raca, Debyani Chakravarty, Malachi Griffith, Obi L. Griffith. Harmonization standards from the Variant Interpretation for Cancer Consortium [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 1096.

PURPOSE The cancer research community is constantly evolving to better understand tumor biology, disease etiology, risk stratification, and pathways to novel treatments. Yet the clinical cancer genomics field has been hindered by redundant efforts to meaningfully collect and interpret disparate data types from multiple high-throughput modalities and integrate into clinical care processes. Bespoke data models, knowledgebases, and one-off customized resources for data analysis often lack adequate governance and quality control needed for these resources to be clinical grade. Many informatics efforts focused on genomic interpretation resources for neoplasms are underway to support data collection, deposition, curation, harmonization, integration, and analytics to support case review and treatment planning. METHODS In this review, we evaluate and summarize the landscape of available tools, resources, and evidence used in the evaluation of somatic and germline tumor variants within the context of molecular tumor boards. RESULTS Molecular tumor boards (MTBs) are collaborative efforts of multidisciplinary cancer experts equipped with genomic interpretation resources to aid in the delivery of accurate and timely clinical interpretations of complex genomic results for each patient, within an institution or hospital network. Virtual MTBs (VMTBs) provide an online forum for collaborative governance, provenance, and information sharing between experts outside a given hospital network with the potential to enhance MTB discussions. Knowledge sharing in VMTBs and communication with guideline-developing organizations can lead to progress evidenced by data harmonization across resources, crowd-sourced and expert-curated genomic assertions, and a more informed and explainable usage of artificial intelligence. CONCLUSION Advances in cancer genomics interpretation aid in better patient and disease classification, more streamlined identification of relevant literature, and a more thorough review of available treatments and predicted patient outcomes.