Miller, Peter G.

Abstract Rationale Constantly exposed to the external environment and mutagens such as tobacco smoke, human lungs have one of the highest somatic mutation rates among all human organs. However, the relationship of these mutations to lung disease and function is not known. Objectives To identify the prevalence and significance of clonal somatic mutations in chronic lung diseases. Methods We analyzed the clonal somatic mutations from 1,251 samples of normal and diseased noncancerous lung tissue RNA sequencing with paired whole-genome sequencing from the Lung Tissue Research Consortium. We examined the associations of somatic mutations with lung function, disease status, and computationally deconvoluted cell types in two of the most common diseases represented in our dataset, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD; 29%) and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF; 13%). Measurements and Main Results Clonal somatic mutational burden was associated with reduced lung function in both COPD and IPF. We identified an increased prevalence of clonal somatic mutations in individuals with IPF compared with normal control subjects and individuals with COPD independent of age and smoking status. IPF clonal somatic mutations were enriched in disease-related and airway epithelial–expressed genes such as MUC5B in IPF. Patients who were MUC5B risk variant carriers had increased odds of developing somatic mutations of MUC5B that were explained by increased expression of MUC5B. Conclusions Our identification of an increased prevalence of clonal somatic mutation in diseased lung that correlates with airway epithelial gene expression and disease severity highlights for the first time the role of somatic mutational processes in lung disease genetics.

Abstract Clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP), an emerging biomarker for personalized risk-directed interventions, is increased in cancer survivors. However, little is known about patient preferences for CHIP testing. We surveyed participants in a prospective cohort study of young women with breast cancer (BC). The emailed survey included an introduction to CHIP and a vignette eliciting participants’ preferences for CHIP testing, considering sequentially: population-based 10-year risk of BC recurrence, hematologic malignancy, and heart disease; increased CHIP-associated risks; current CHIP management; dedicated CHIP clinic; and hypothetical CHIP treatment. Preference changes were evaluated using the McNemar test. The survey response rate was 82.2% (528/642). Median age at time of survey was 46 years and median time from diagnosis was 108 months. Only 5.9% had prior knowledge of CHIP. After vignette presentation, most survivors (87.1%) recommended CHIP testing for the vignette patient. Presented next with CHIP-independent, population-based risks, 11.1% shifted their preference from testing to not testing. After receiving information about CHIP-associated risks, an additional 10.1% shifted their preference to testing. Preference for testing increased if vignette patient was offered a CHIP clinic or hypothetical CHIP treatment, with 7.2% and 14.1% switching preferences toward testing, respectively. Finally, 75.8% of participants desired CHIP testing for themselves. Among participants, 28.2% reported that learning about CHIP caused at least moderate anxiety. Most young survivors favored CHIP testing, with preferences influenced by risk presentation and potential management strategies. Our findings highlight the importance of risk communication and psychosocial support when considering biomarkers for future risk in cancer survivors. This trial has been registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01468246.

e24108 Background: Clonal hematopoiesis of Indeterminate Potential (CHIP) is associated with adverse clinical outcomes including increased risk of hematologic malignancies and heart disease. Limited data suggest an increased prevalence of CHIP in patients treated for solid tumors, particularly after exposure to radiation and chemotherapy. CHIP testing may inform risk-reduction strategies for cancer survivors. Little is known about patient knowledge, attitudes, and preferences regarding CHIP testing. Methods: We surveyed survivors without history of recurrence participating in an ongoing prospective cohort study of young women with breast cancer (BC). The survey was sent by email and included an introduction to CHIP including risk factors and clinical associations. Respondents then reviewed a vignette and were asked about CHIP testing preferences (definitely/probably test vs. definitely/probably not test) considering sequentially: 1) population-based 10-year risk of BC recurrence, hematological malignancy and heart disease; 2) estimated increase in these risks with CHIP; 3) current CHIP management; 4) a dedicated CHIP clinic; and 5) a theoretical CHIP treatment. Changes in preferences from the prior scenario were evaluated with the McNemar's test using a type I error rate of 5%. Results: 528/642 (82.2%) eligible women responded to the survey, at a median age of 46 (range: 31-54) years (median time from diagnosis: 108 months (range: 60-168)), and 88% were white. Most had stage 1/2 BC (78.8%) and had received chemotherapy (73.1%) and/or radiation (61.9%). 93.6% had never heard of CHIP prior to survey. After initial patient vignette presentation, most women (87.1%,) recommended CHIP testing if offered. Preferences for testing decreased (p<0.05) when considering population-based risks, with 11.1% shifting their preference from CHIP testing to not testing. After considering increased risks associated with CHIP, interest in testing increased (p<0.05), with 10.1% shifting their preference to testing. Interest significantly (p<0.05) increased with the possibility of managing CHIP through a clinic or a hypothetical CHIP treatment, with 7.2% and 14.1% switching their preferences towards testing, respectively. Finally, 75.8% responded that they themselves, after learning about CHIP and reviewing the vignette, would want to have CHIP testing; 28.2% reported that learning about CHIP and the associated risks caused them at least moderate anxiety. Conclusion: Few young BC survivors were aware of CHIP yet most indicated an interest in testing after learning about it. Testing preferences were influenced by risks presented and potential management strategies. Findings highlight the importance of effective risk communication and the need for adequate psychosocial support when considering testing for CHIP and other potential clinical biomarkers predictive of cancer and other medical risks in cancer survivors.