Trent, Jeffrey M

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.

Genome-wide fragmentation patterns in cell-free DNA (cfDNA) in plasma are strongly influenced by cellular origin due to variation in chromatin accessibility across cell types. Such differences between healthy and cancer cells provide the opportunity for development of novel cancer diagnostics. Here, we investigated whether analysis of cfDNA fragment end positions and their surrounding DNA sequences reveals the presence of tumor-derived DNA in blood. We performed genome-wide analysis of cfDNA from 521 samples and analyzed sequencing data from an additional 2147 samples, including healthy individuals and patients with 11 different cancer types. We developed a metric based on genome-wide differences in fragment positioning, weighted by fragment length and GC content [information-weighted fraction of aberrant fragments (iwFAF)]. We observed that iwFAF strongly correlated with tumor fraction, was higher for DNA fragments carrying somatic mutations, and was higher within genomic regions affected by copy number amplifications. We also calculated sample-level means of nucleotide frequencies observed at genomic positions spanning fragment ends. Using a combination of iwFAF and nine nucleotide frequencies from three positions surrounding fragment ends, we developed a machine learning model to differentiate healthy individuals from patients with cancer. We observed an area under the receiver operative characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.91 for detection of cancer at any stage and an AUC of 0.87 for detection of stage I cancer. Our findings remained robust with as few as 1 million fragments analyzed per sample, demonstrating that analysis of fragment ends can become a cost-effective and accessible approach for cancer detection and monitoring.