Hunt, Katherine S.

463 Background: The genomic assessment of cancer has been revolutionized by next-generation sequencing and is increasingly being applied in the clinic to guide therapeutic decision-making. Time to reporting of results, specimen quantity, and analyte quality have constrained initial clinical applications to gene panels and whole exome based strategies. Methods: Patients underwent surgical resection, excisional or core biopsies, or bone marrow biopsy. Samples were analyzed by whole genome or exome sequencing and RNA sequencing, bioinformatics analysis, and therapeutic target prioritization by a multi-disciplinary Clinical Genomics Board. All prioritized targets were CLIA validated using Sanger sequencing, RT-qPCR, FISH, or IHC as appropriate. Treatment was delivered using off-label FDA approved drugs, clinical trials, or single patient INDs. Results: We have enrolled 40 patients with advanced, treatment-refractory cancers of whom sequencing data is available on 33. The initial 6 patients were evaluated in a non-CLIA pilot phase and 27 in the CLIA enabled phase. Upon availability of the initial report, identified targets of putative therapeutic relevance were then prioritized by the CGB in 22/27 patients (81%) for subsequent CLIA validation. Eleven patients have been treated with genomically selected therapy with partial response in 3/10 assessed patients. A testicular cancer patient had aberrations in two testes specific genes, a copy number gain in TSSK6 and a novel gene fusion between thyroid hormone receptor associated protein 3 (THRAP3) and Tektin 2 (TEKT2). Additionally, a case of papillary renal cell carcinoma had an amplification of YAP1 and a previously unreported P287T mutation in CCND1, suggesting potential benefit with a CDK4/6 inhibitor. Treatment is ongoing and results will be reported. Conclusions: Integrated whole genome analysis in a CLIA setting is feasible. Integration of SNV, copy number and transcriptional data may allow for selection of putative driver genes to enhance targeted therapy decisions. Barriers for future broader implementation include the need for reduced time from biopsy to report and availability of therapies.

Abstract Background: Genomic assessment of cancer has been revolutionized by Next-Generation sequencing and is increasingly being applied to guide clinical prognostic and therapeutic decision-making. Initial clinical applications have been limited to gene panels and whole exome based strategies due to challenges with time to reporting of results, specimen quantity, analyte quality, and ethical-legal-social issues (ELSI). Methods: Excisional or core tumor biopsies or bone marrow biopsies were obtained from consenting participants. Nucleic acid was extracted from fresh or frozen samples followed by WGS/WES/RNASeq on the Illumina HiSeq2000 or HiSeq2500 and bioinformatics analysis. Therapeutic targets were then prioritized by a multi-disciplinary Genomic Tumor Board (GTB) and CLIA validated using Sanger sequencing, RT-qPCR, FISH and/or IHC. Treatment was delivered using on/off-label FDA approved drugs, available clinical trials and single patient INDs. Results: We consented 64 and enrolled 35 patients with advanced, treatment-refractory cancers. Median age was 59 (range 27-91) with 62% male. The majority had ECOG scores of 1 (94%). A median of 79 (range 28-8891) potentially functional somatic point mutations were identified in each case. One to two mutations/case were further identified as therapeutically targetable in 60% of the cases. The median time from tissue acquisition to CLIA validated results was 116 days (range 42-282) with CLIA validation of targets achieved in 21 of 22 patients. Genomic, target directed treatment was ultimately instituted in 13 patients utilizing: on/off label FDA approved drugs (n = 9), clinical trial (n = 3) and single patient IND (n = 1). Preliminary clinical efficacy was noted in 5 patients (2 PR, 3 SD). Integration of WES, long-insert WGS and RNA-Seq identified a case with an ERRFI1 mutant allele present in only 11% of the DNA reads while 82% of the RNA-Seq reads had the mutant transcript. The patient was treated with erlotinib and achieved a partial response by RECIST criteria. In another case, a fusion between FGFR2-MGEA5 was observed in WES and RNA-Seq data leading to prioritization as a drug target. Reasons for patients not receiving targeted therapy included: inability to access treatment (n = 1), death prior to intended treatment (n = 3), results returned after death (n = 3), no targets identified (n = 2) and decision to pursue alternate therapy (n = 5). Conclusions: Integrating whole genome analysis in a CLIA setting is not only feasible, but also valuable, in the prioritization and selection of potential targeted therapies for patients with advanced tumors. Continued barriers to broad application include the need for shorter time to reporting as well as broad availability of therapies through basket studies. Citation Format: Mitesh J. Borad, Jan Egan, Mia Champion, Katherine Hunt, Robert McWilliams, Ann McCullough, Jessica Aldrich, Sara Nasser, Winnie Liang, Michael Barrett, David Craig, Ramesh Ramanathan, John Carpten, A. Keith Stewart, Alan Bryce. Implementation of CLIA enabled integrated whole genome (WGS)/exome (WES)/transcriptome (RNAseq) next-gen sequencing to identify therapeutically relevant targets in advanced cancer patients. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 106th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2015 Apr 18-22; Philadelphia, PA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2015;75(15 Suppl):Abstract nr CT112. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2015-CT112

Abstract Background: Whole genome/exome/RNA sequencing has revolutionized the ability to assess the genomic landscape of cancer and is increasingly being utilized for clinical decision-making. Initial clinical applications have been constrained by specimen quantity, analyte quality and the time from sample acquisition to results report. Methods: Patients with advanced cancers underwent surgical resection, excisional/core biopsies, or bone marrow biopsy. Samples were analyzed by whole genome or exome sequencing in addition to RNA sequencing, bioinformatics analysis, and therapeutic target prioritization by a multi-disciplinary Clinical Genomics Board. All prioritized targets were CLIA validated using Sanger sequencing, RT-qPCR, FISH, or IHC as appropriate. Treatment was delivered using off-label FDA approved drugs, clinical trials, or single patient INDs. Results: We have enrolled 40 patients for whom sequencing data is available on 33. The initial 6 patients were evaluated in a non-CLIA pilot phase and 27 in a CLIA-enabled phase. Tumor types in the CLIA-enabled phase with the highest enrollment were pancreatic cancer (n=8) and cholangiocarcinoma (n=8). We sought to quantify the targets identified along with clinical benefit, defining these as the “Actionable Index” (AI) (proportion of patients with ≥ 1 putative drug target) and “Utility Index” (UI) (proportion of patients who derive clinical benefit). Putative therapeutic targets were identified in 7/8 (AI=0.88) cholangiocarcinoma (CC) patients and in 5/8 (AI=0.63) pancreatic cancer (PC) patients. All 3 CC patients who received target directed treatment achieved a partial response (UI=0.38). In contrast, none of the 4 PC patients who received target directed therapy had treatment response (UI=0.0). Interestingly no actionable targets were identified in 1 CC and in 2 PCs. One CC with an identified target was unable to access the drug and subsequently died. A CC patient and a PC patient, each with identified targets, expired prior to the initiation of therapy. Conclusions: While whole genome/exome/RNA sequencing is providing unparalleled detail of tumor genomes, the application to the clinic must be carefully considered. Actionability of targets will eventually need to be defined in close relation to eventual clinical utility and appropriate refinements to disease-gene-drug databases implemented. Preliminary observations in pancreatic cancer and cholangiocarcinoma demonstrate disparity in correlation between utility indices and actionable indices. Application of these tools in larger cohorts and types of tumors will need to be conducted to ascertain more precise estimates. Additional measures that are organ-site agnostic but pertain to specific targets (e.g. BRAF) will also need to be developed in order to facilitate more judicious application of sequencing in the clinical setting. Citation Format: Jan B. Egan, Alan H. Bryce, Mia D. Champion, Winnie S. Liang, Rafael Fonseca, Ann E. McCullough, Michael T. Barrett, Katherine Hunt, Rachel M. Condjella, Robert R. McWilliams, Stephen D. Mastrian, Janine LoBello, Daniel Von Hoff, David W. Craig, A. Keith Stewart, John D. Carpten, Mitesh J. Borad. Indices of actionability and clinical utility in a CLIA-enabled study of whole genome/exome/RNA sequencing in 33 cancer patients: Actionable vs. utility. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 105th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2014 Apr 5-9; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2014;74(19 Suppl):Abstract nr 4694. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2014-4694

AbstractScreening for the Muir‐Torre variant of Lynch Syndrome (LS) using Mismatch Repair (MMR) gene immunohistochemistry (IHC) on sebaceous neoplasms (SNs) is technically feasible. To date, research into the clinical utility of MMR IHC for this indication is limited. We conducted a retrospective chart review of 90 patients with MMR IHC completed on at least one SN from January 2005 to May 2010. SNs included were adenomas, epitheliomas, carcinomas and basal and squamous cell carcinomas with sebaceous differentiation. Of the 90 patients, 13 (14 %) had genetically confirmed or fulfilled clinical criteria for a diagnosis of MTS and 51 patients (57 %) presented with an abnormal MMR IHC result (loss of one or more MMR proteins) on at least one SN. Abnormal IHC had a sensitivity of 85 %, specificity of 48 %, positive predictive value (PPV) of 22 % and negative predictive value (NPV) of 95 % when evaluating for MTS. When personal or family history of colorectal cancer (≥2 family members with a history of colorectal cancer) was taken into consideration, ignoring IHC results, sensitivity was 92 %, specificity was 99 %, PPV was 92 % and NPV was 99 %. MMR IHC on SNs when used to screen for MTS has poor diagnostic utility. We recommend that MMR IHC not be performed routinely on SNs when the patient does not have either personal or family history of colorectal cancer.

AbstractThese cancer genetic counseling recommendations describe the medical, psychosocial, and ethical ramifications of identifying at‐risk individuals through cancer risk assessment with or without genetic testing. They were developed by members of the Practice Issues Subcommittee of the National Society of Genetic Counselors Cancer Genetic Counseling Special Interest Group. The information contained in this document is derived from extensivereview of the current literature on cancer genetic risk assessment and counseling as well as the personal expertise of genetic counselors specializing in cancer genetics. The recommendations are intended to provid information about the process of genetic counseling and risk assessment for hereditary cancer disorders rather than specific information about individual syndromes. Key components include the intake (medical and family histories), psychosocial assessment (assessment of risk perception), cancer risk assessment (determination and communication of risk), molecular testing for hereditary cancer syndromes (regulations, informed consent, and counseling process), and follow‐up considerations. These recommendations should not be construed as dictating an exclusive course of management, nor does use of such recommendations guarantee a particular outcome. These recommendations do not displace a health care provider's professional judgment based on the clinical circumstances of a client.