Plon, Sharon E.

ABSTRACT Background Decision‐making (DM) dynamics between adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with cancer, parents, and oncologists remain underexplored in diverse populations. We examined cancer treatment DM preferences among an ethnically and socioeconomically diverse group of AYAs and their parents. Procedure We surveyed AYAs with cancer ( n = 75) and their parents ( n = 52) participating in the Texas KidsCanSeq study. Among AYA‐parent pairs, we compared preferred and actual treatment DM roles. We explored associations among DM roles, having pediatric‐to‐adult care transition discussions, and clinical and sociodemographic characteristics. We report AYAs’ and parents’ preferences for involvement in shared decision‐making (SDM) with oncologists about cancer treatment. Results AYAs’ DM role preferences varied: 44% preferred to equally share DM with parents, 31% preferred AYA‐led DM, and 25% preferred parent‐led DM. Parents who preferred parent‐led DM had younger AYAs than parents who preferred equally shared DM ( p = 0.011). For actual DM, 48% of AYAs reported DM was equally shared, 24% reported DM was AYA‐led, and 28% reported DM was parent‐led. Most AYAs had their preferred role (73%). AYAs’ actual role did not significantly differ from their own or their parents’ preferences (both p > 0.05). Approximately half of AYAs reported recent pediatric‐to‐adult care transition discussions. AYAs’ DM preferences and participation in transition discussions did not significantly differ along clinical or sociodemographic characteristics (all p > 0.05). AYAs and parents perceived high importance across all aspects of SDM with oncologists. Conclusion In this diverse study population, AYAs desired engagement in treatment DM and SDM. Although specific role preferences varied, opportunities existed to increase discussion around pediatric‐to‐adult care transition.

Abstract Purpose: DROSHA, DGCR8, and DICER1 regulate miRNA biogenesis and are commonly mutated in cancer. Although DGCR8 and DICER1 germline pathogenic variants (GPV) cause autosomal dominant tumor predisposition, no association between DROSHA GPVs and clinical phenotypes has been reported. Experimental Design: After obtaining informed consent, sequencing was performed on germline and tumor samples from all patients. The occurrence of germline DROSHA GPVs was investigated in large pediatric and adult cancer datasets. The population prevalence of DROSHA GPVs was investigated in the UK Biobank and Geisinger DiscovEHR cohorts. Results: We describe nine children from eight families with heterozygous DROSHA GPVs and a diagnosis of pineoblastoma (n = 8) or Wilms tumor (n = 1). A somatic second hit in DROSHA was detected in all eight tumors analyzed. All pineoblastoma tumors analyzed were classified as miRNA processing–altered 1 subtype. We estimate the population prevalence of germline DROSHA loss-of-function variants to be 1:3,875 to 1:4,843 but find no evidence for increased adult cancer risk. Conclusions: This is the first report of DROSHA-related tumor predisposition. As pineoblastoma and Wilms tumor are also associated with DICER1 GPVs, our results suggest that the tissues of origin for these tumors are uniquely tolerant of general miRNA loss. The miRNA processing–altered 1 pineoblastoma subtype is associated with older age of diagnosis and better outcomes than other subtypes, suggesting DROSHA GPV status may have important clinical and prognostic significance. We suggest that genetic testing for DROSHA GPVs be considered for patients with pineoblastoma, Wilms tumor, or other DICER1-/DGCR8-related conditions and propose surveillance recommendations through research studies for individuals with DROSHA GPVs.

Abstract Interpretation of the clinical significance of somatic gene variants in cancer remains a major challenge in cancer diagnosis, prognosis and treatment response prediction. We will report on progress and plans of the Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) Somatic Cancer Clinical Domain Working Group (CDWG). The CDWG membership consists of over 150 multi-disciplinary experts in cancer biology, oncology, pathology, genetics, genomics and informatics. The mission of the ClinGen Somatic Cancer CDWG is to facilitate the development of data curation guidelines and standards to determine the clinical significance of somatic alterations in cancer, thereby enhancing the usability, dissemination and implementation of cancer somatic changes in the ClinGen resource and other knowledgebases including CIViC, ClinVar, and the Variant Interpretation for Cancer Consortium (VICC) MetaKB. Our goal is to create high-quality assertions of the clinical significance of specific somatic variants in cancer by leveraging the CIViC curation interface, adapting the germline procedures of ClinGen to somatic variant interpretation, and implementing the interoperability standards of the Global Alliance for Genomics and Health (GA4GH). The ClinGen Somatic effort is overseen by the Somatic CDWG and reports progress to the overall ClinGen consortium. There are Somatic Cancer subdomains focused on particular clinically important domains of cancer variant interpretation including three Task Forces (covering Pediatric Cancer, Hematologic Cancer, and Solid Tumors) and a growing number of Somatic Cancer Variant Curation Expert Panels (SC-VCEPs). To improve quality and consistency of clinical interpretations, each candidate somatic cancer VCEP must complete a four step approval process adapted from ClinGen’s work in Germline disease domains. The Somatic CDWG works to ensure that each group is aware of available training materials and detailed standard operating procedures. Each SC-VCEP also coordinates with the ClinGen Cancer Variant Interpretation Committee (CVI) whose goal is to support development of granular specifications for the AMP/ASCO/CAP guidelines for somatic variant interpretation. New SC-VCEPs are anticipated to focus on specific clinically relevant genes, pathways, disease entities, variant classes or treatment modalities. Currently, three SC-VCEPs have begun to work through the four step process (focused on FGFR mutations, NTRK fusions, and FLT3 mutations respectively), and two more SC-VCEPs are in the planning stage (Histone H3 and Ph-like ALL). To date, ClinGen Somatic groups have contributed 619 evidence lines into CIViC from 353 published papers and 21 assertions of clinical significance. Input from the AACR community is critical for the establishment of new SC-VCEPs that address areas of variant interpretation with the greatest need. Citation Format: Jason Saliba, Gordana Raca, Angshumoy Roy, Ian King, Shamini Selvarajah, Xinjie Xu, Rashmi Kanagal-Shamanna, Laveniya Satgunaseelan, David Meredith, Mark Evans, Alanna Church, Panieh Terraf, Yassmine Akkari, Heather E. Williams, Wan-Hsin Lin, Chimene Kesserwan, Deborah I. Ritter, Kilannin Krysiak, Arpad Danos, Alex Wagner, Marilyn M. Li, Dmitriy Sonkin, Jonathan S. Berg, Sharon E. Plon, Heidi L. Rehm, Shashikant Kulkarni, Ramaswamy Govindan, Obi L. Griffith, Malachi Griffith, on behalf of the ClinGen Somatic CDWG. The Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) somatic cancer clinical domain working group [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2022; 2022 Apr 8-13. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(12_Suppl):Abstract nr 1192.

Key Points The ClinGen MM-VCEP has specified RUNX1-specific curation rules to address gene function, gene-specific domains, and phenotypic criteria. RUNX1-specific criteria resulted in a reduction in CONF and VUS variants by 33%, emphasizing the need for expert variant curation.

Abstract Objective Clinicians’ ability to use and interpret genetic information depends upon how those data are displayed in electronic health records (EHRs). There is a critical need to develop systems to effectively display genetic information in EHRs and augment clinical decision support (CDS). Materials and Methods The National Institutes of Health (NIH)-sponsored Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research and Electronic Medical Records & Genomics EHR Working Groups conducted a multiphase, iterative process involving working group discussions and 2 surveys in order to determine how genetic and genomic information are currently displayed in EHRs, envision optimal uses for different types of genetic or genomic information, and prioritize areas for EHR improvement. Results There is substantial heterogeneity in how genetic information enters and is documented in EHR systems. Most institutions indicated that genetic information was displayed in multiple locations in their EHRs. Among surveyed institutions, genetic information enters the EHR through multiple laboratory sources and through clinician notes. For laboratory-based data, the source laboratory was the main determinant of the location of genetic information in the EHR. The highest priority recommendation was to address the need to implement CDS mechanisms and content for decision support for medically actionable genetic information. Conclusion Heterogeneity of genetic information flow and importance of source laboratory, rather than clinical content, as a determinant of information representation are major barriers to using genetic information optimally in patient care. Greater effort to develop interoperable systems to receive and consistently display genetic and/or genomic information and alert clinicians to genomic-dependent improvements to clinical care is recommended.

AbstractIntroduction.DNA variants of uncertain significance (VUS) are common outcomes of clinical genetic testing for susceptibility to cancer. A statistically rigorous model that provides a pathogenicity score for each variant has been developed to aid in the clinical management of patients undergoing genetic testing.Methods.The information in this article is derived from multiple publications on VUS in BRCA genes, distilled for communicating with clinicians who may encounter VUS in their practice.Results.The posterior probability scores for BRCA1 or BRCA2 VUS, calculated from a multifactorial likelihood model, are explained, and links for looking up specific VUS are provided. The International Agency on Cancer Research (IARC) of the World Health Organization has proposed a simple five-tier system for clinical management that is not widely known to clinicians. Classes 1 and 2 in this system are managed as neutral variants, classes 4 and 5 are managed as pathogenic variants, and class 3 variants still have insufficient evidence to move to either end of this scale and, thus, cannot be used in medical management.Conclusions.Development of models that integrate multiple independent lines of evidence has allowed classification of a growing number of VUS in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. The pathogenicity score that is generated by this model maps to the IARC system for clinical management, which will assist clinicians in the medical management of those patients who obtain a VUS result upon testing.