Citations

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 Clinical Genome (ClinGen) Resource is a US National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI)-funded program dedicated to building an expert curated and freely available central resource that defines the clinical relevance of genes and variants for use in precision medicine. Teams of experts in various clinical domains come together as working groups within ClinGen to facilitate the interpretation, annotation and utilization of genes-variants for clinical application. Somatic Cancer is one such ClinGen Clinical Domain Working Group (CDWG) that consists of over 90 members worldwide, including clinicians, clinical laboratory diagnosticians, genomic scientists and bioinformaticians. Members of this CDWG identify high priority somatic variants in different cancer types that require expert curation and consensus in their clinical interpretation. In order to accurately implement practice guidelines/standards for variant interpretation, the Somatic Cancer CDWG recently established a somatic Variant Curation Expert Panel (VCEP) approval process. Based on their interest and clinical domain expertise, a subset of the CDWG members formed somatic VCEPs to perform authoritative curation on the shortlisted genes-somatic variants within the context of a disease, therapeutic indication or biological pathway. Expert curation within these VCEPs is performed by utilizing guidelines such as those recommended by AMP/ASCO/CAP (Li et al. 2017) and the Somatic Cancer CDWG (Ritter et al. 2016). Wherever necessary, the somatic VCEPs will develop: 1) gene- and disease-specific modifications to address gaps in existing variant assessment guidelines, 2) quantitative approaches for variant interpretation, and 3) implement standardized protocols for annotating somatic variants in genes for a specific disease, drug or biological pathway. Furthermore, ClinGen recently formed the Cancer Variant Interpretation (CVI) committee to provide support, review and feedback on the provisional somatic variant interpretation proposals developed by the VCEPs. The CVI provides somatic VCEPs with a preliminary approval before the final approval by the ClinGen CDWG oversight committee and ultimately ‘expert panel' status in ClinVar, an NCBI-maintained database of clinically relevant gene variants. NTRK fusions in cancer is the first Somatic VCEP going through the ClinGen Somatic Expert Panel approval process. Alterations in the FGFR pathway in GU cancers is the second somatic VCEP under consideration. The Somatic CDWG uses the CIViC (Clinical Interpretation of Variants in Cancer) platform for curation of somatic variants. To date, the CDWG has curated 268 evidence items relating to cancer variants in CIViC, 6 assertions, and 33 evidence source suggestions. The ultimate goal of the Somatic CDWG is to enhance the usability, dissemination and implementation of cancer somatic changes in the ClinGen resource and other cancer variant knowledgebases. Citation Format: Shruti Rao, Deborah Ritter, Arpad Danos, Gordana Raca, Angshumoy Roy, Kilannin Krysiak, Wan-Hsin Lin, Erica Barnell, Matthew McCoy, Beth Pitel, Dmitriy Sonkin, Jue Wang, Seyed Ali Hosseini, Shamini Selvarajah, Ian King, Rashmi Kanagal-Shamana, Xinjie Xu, Jeremy L. Warner, Funda Meric-Bernstam, Jason D. Merker, Marilyn Li, Alex H. Wagner, Malachi Griffith, Obi L. Griffith, Shashikant Kulkarni, Subha Madhavan. ClinGen somatic cancer working group: Disseminating standardized cancer molecular diagnostic data and evidence through global collaboration and expert curation [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 3215.

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.

Abstract Background It is unclear how the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) should be interpreted in the context of sharing of genomic information between family members. Methods The authors analyzed the HIPAA Privacy Rule, reviewed the literature and constructed a clinical scenario to inform how HIPAA can be interpreted for multiple forms of patient- and provider-mediated genetic risk notification. Results Under HIPAA, healthcare providers can lawfully notify relatives to recommend genetic risk assessment using multiple approaches, including supporting the patient telling their own relatives, contacting relatives directly with the patient’s authorization, or contacting a relative’s provider directly. Conclusions Multiple forms of patient- or provider-mediated contact of relatives are already legally permissible under HIPAA, are consistent with ethical obligations of care to patients and their families, and could result in improved population health through identification of clinically actionable disease risk. Unanswered questions remain about implementation and impacts of provider-mediated programs.

AbstractIntroductionMicrostructural alterations as assessed by diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) are key findings in both Alzheimer's disease (AD) and small vessel disease (SVD). We determined the contribution of each of these conditions to diffusion alterations.MethodsWe studied six samples (N = 365 participants) covering the spectrum of AD and SVD, including genetically defined samples. We calculated diffusion measures from DTI and free water imaging. Simple linear, multivariable random forest, and voxel‐based regressions were used to evaluate associations between AD biomarkers (amyloid beta, tau), SVD imaging markers, and diffusion measures.ResultsSVD markers were strongly associated with diffusion measures and showed a higher contribution than AD biomarkers in multivariable analysis across all memory clinic samples. Voxel‐wise analyses between tau and diffusion measures were not significant.DiscussionIn memory clinic patients, the effect of SVD on diffusion alterations largely exceeds the effect of AD, supporting the value of diffusion measures as markers of SVD.

10017 Background: In preclinical models, temozolomide (TMZ) and vincristine (VCR) are synergistic with irinotecan (IRN). We sought to determine the dose limiting toxicities (DLTs) and maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of orally administered IRN given on two different schedules together with TMZ and VCR in children with refractory solid tumors, using cefixime to reduce IRN-associated diarrhea. Methods: Schedule A: Oral IRN daily for 5 days for 2 weeks (dx5x2), with VCR 1.5 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 and TMZ 100 mg/m2 on days 1 - 5. Schedule B: Oral IRN daily for 5 days for 1 week (dx5x1) with VCR 1.5 mg/m2 on day 1 and TMZ 100 - 150 mg/m2 on days 1 - 5. Courses were repeated every 3 weeks. A standard cohorts of 3 + 3 design was used. Results: On Schedule A, 18 evaluable patients (median age 15 yrs, range 3 - 21) received 55 courses. At IRN 50 mg/m2/day, 4/12 pts had DLT (hepatotoxicity, abdominal pain, anorexia, hypokalemia, and thrombocytopenia). The oral IRN MTD on this dx5x2 schedule was 35 mg/m2/d (1/6 pts with DLT of hypoalbuminemia). On Schedule B, 18 evaluable patients (median age 9 yrs, range 3–21) received 71 courses of oral IRN 70 - 90 mg/m2/d x 5 with TMZ 100 - 150 mg/m2/d x 5. At oral IRN 90 mg/m2/d with TMZ 150 mg/m2/d, 0/6 pts had DLT, and no Grade 4 toxicities were seen. No further doses were explored. First-course and cumulative toxicity appeared worse with Schedule A, including 3 patients with responding or stable tumors who withdrew due to fatigue, nausea, and weight loss. UGT1A1*28genotype did not correlate with DLT. At the oral IRN MTD of 90 mg/m2/d, the median SN-38 AUCinf was 72 ng/ml*h. One patient with osteosarcoma had a confirmed partial response. Unconfirmed complete and partial responses were seen in 2 Ewing sarcoma patients. Eight additional patients received > 6 courses, including 2 each with neuroblastoma and medulloblastoma. Conclusions: The dx5x1 schedule of VOIT was well tolerated, with SN-38 exposures similar to those achieved with intravenous IRN. Activity on this and prior studies suggests a potential role for VOIT in sarcoma patients. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

4627 Background: E4201 compared radiation and gemcitabine (RT+Gem) versus Gem alone in LAPC. The primary endpoint was overall survival; secondary objectives included: objective response rate (RR), progression-free survival (PFS), toxicity and QOL. We previously reported that RT+Gem was associated with improved overall survival compared with Gem alone [median survival time, 11 months and 9.2 months, respectively; p=0.034], without impact in RR or PFS. (ASCO 2008, abstract # 4506). We now report on QOL as measured by the Hep subscale from the FACT-Hepatobiliary [FACT-Hep] between both arms. Methods: Eligible patients had LAPC adenocarcinoma, PS <2, without prior therapy. They were randomized to Arm A: Gem alone (1,000 mg/m2/week x 3, every 4 weeks, 7 cycles), or Arm B: RT (50.4Gy/28 fractions) plus Gem (600 mg/m2/weekly x 6) followed by 5 cycles of Gem alone (1,000 mg/m2/weekly x 3 every 4 wks). The FACT-Hep was administered at baseline (before starting induction), 6 weeks (immediately after completing induction), week 16 (Arm A) or week 15 (Arm B) mid-consolidation, and at 9 months. Results: From April, 2003 to December, 2005, 74 patients were enrolled, 71 were eligible [37 Arm A; 34 Arm B]. Grade ≥3 was reported in 80% and 82.4% in ARM A and B, respectively (p=1.00). Grade IV toxicities, mainly gastrointestinal and hematologic, were more common in ARM B (41.2% vs 5.7%, p=<0.0001). QOL compliance declined over time, most commonly attributable to either patients or staff choosing not to complete or administer the instrument due to declining health (96%, 69%, 60%, and 40% at baseline, week 6, 15/16 weeks and 9 months, respectively). Within Arm B, QoL scores dropped significantly from baseline to 6 weeks. By week 15, QoL scores for patients on Arm B rebounded to levels similar to baseline. Two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests failed to suggest differences in median FACT-Hep subscale score between treatment arms at any of the four time-points (alpha = 0.10). Conclusions: RT+Gem is associated with an overall survival benefit without apparent long term adverse impact on QOL when compared with Gem alone. No significant financial relationships to disclose.