Cargando…

Assessment of Diagnostic Outcomes of RNA Genetic Testing for Hereditary Cancer

IMPORTANCE: Performing DNA genetic testing (DGT) for hereditary cancer genes is now a well-accepted clinical practice; however, the interpretation of DNA variation remains a challenge for laboratories and clinicians. Adding RNA genetic testing (RGT) enhances DGT by clarifying the clinical actionabil...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Karam, Rachid, Conner, Blair, LaDuca, Holly, McGoldrick, Kelly, Krempely, Kate, Richardson, Marcy E., Zimmermann, Heather, Gutierrez, Stephanie, Reineke, Patrick, Hoang, Lily, Allen, Kyle, Yussuf, Amal, Farber-Katz, Suzette, Rana, Huma Q., Culver, Samantha, Lee, John, Nashed, Sarah, Toppmeyer, Deborah, Collins, Debra, Haynes, Ginger, Pesaran, Tina, Dolinsky, Jill S., Tippin Davis, Brigette, Elliott, Aaron, Chao, Elizabeth
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: American Medical Association 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6820040/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31642931
http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.13900
_version_ 1783463862523133952
author Karam, Rachid
Conner, Blair
LaDuca, Holly
McGoldrick, Kelly
Krempely, Kate
Richardson, Marcy E.
Zimmermann, Heather
Gutierrez, Stephanie
Reineke, Patrick
Hoang, Lily
Allen, Kyle
Yussuf, Amal
Farber-Katz, Suzette
Rana, Huma Q.
Culver, Samantha
Lee, John
Nashed, Sarah
Toppmeyer, Deborah
Collins, Debra
Haynes, Ginger
Pesaran, Tina
Dolinsky, Jill S.
Tippin Davis, Brigette
Elliott, Aaron
Chao, Elizabeth
author_facet Karam, Rachid
Conner, Blair
LaDuca, Holly
McGoldrick, Kelly
Krempely, Kate
Richardson, Marcy E.
Zimmermann, Heather
Gutierrez, Stephanie
Reineke, Patrick
Hoang, Lily
Allen, Kyle
Yussuf, Amal
Farber-Katz, Suzette
Rana, Huma Q.
Culver, Samantha
Lee, John
Nashed, Sarah
Toppmeyer, Deborah
Collins, Debra
Haynes, Ginger
Pesaran, Tina
Dolinsky, Jill S.
Tippin Davis, Brigette
Elliott, Aaron
Chao, Elizabeth
author_sort Karam, Rachid
collection PubMed
description IMPORTANCE: Performing DNA genetic testing (DGT) for hereditary cancer genes is now a well-accepted clinical practice; however, the interpretation of DNA variation remains a challenge for laboratories and clinicians. Adding RNA genetic testing (RGT) enhances DGT by clarifying the clinical actionability of hereditary cancer gene variants, thus improving clinicians’ ability to accurately apply strategies for cancer risk reduction and treatment. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether RGT is associated with improvement in the diagnostic outcome of DGT and in the delivery of personalized cancer risk management for patients with hereditary cancer predisposition. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Diagnostic study in which patients and/or families with inconclusive variants detected by DGT in genes associated with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, Lynch syndrome, and hereditary diffuse gastric cancer sent blood samples for RGT from March 2016 to April 2018. Clinicians who ordered genetic testing and received a reclassification report for these variants were surveyed to assess whether RGT-related variant reclassifications changed clinical management of these patients. To quantify the potential number of tested individuals who could benefit from RGT, a cohort of 307 812 patients who underwent DGT for hereditary cancer were separately queried to identify variants predicted to affect splicing. Data analysis was conducted from March 2016 and September 2018. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Variant reclassification outcomes following RGT, clinical management changes associated with RGT-related variant reclassifications, and the proportion of patients who would likely be affected by a concurrent DGT and RGT multigene panel testing approach. RESULTS: In total, 93 if 909 eligible families (10.2%) submitted samples for RGT. Evidence from RGT clarified the interpretation of 49 of 56 inconclusive cases (88%) studied; 26 (47%) were reclassified as clinically actionable and 23 (41%) were clarified as benign. Variant reclassifications based on RGT results changed clinical management recommendations for 8 of 18 patients (44%) and 14 of 18 families (78%), based on responses from 18 of 45 clinicians (40%) surveyed. A total of 7265 of 307 812 patients who underwent DGT had likely pathogenic variants or variants of uncertain significance potentially affecting splicing, indicating that approximately 1 in 43 individuals could benefit from RGT. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this diagnostic study, conducting RNA testing resolved a substantial proportion of variants of uncertain significance in a cohort of individuals previously tested for cancer predisposition by DGT. Performing RGT might change the diagnostic outcome of at least 1 in 43 patients if performed in all individuals undergoing genetic evaluation for hereditary cancer.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6820040
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher American Medical Association
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-68200402019-11-14 Assessment of Diagnostic Outcomes of RNA Genetic Testing for Hereditary Cancer Karam, Rachid Conner, Blair LaDuca, Holly McGoldrick, Kelly Krempely, Kate Richardson, Marcy E. Zimmermann, Heather Gutierrez, Stephanie Reineke, Patrick Hoang, Lily Allen, Kyle Yussuf, Amal Farber-Katz, Suzette Rana, Huma Q. Culver, Samantha Lee, John Nashed, Sarah Toppmeyer, Deborah Collins, Debra Haynes, Ginger Pesaran, Tina Dolinsky, Jill S. Tippin Davis, Brigette Elliott, Aaron Chao, Elizabeth JAMA Netw Open Original Investigation IMPORTANCE: Performing DNA genetic testing (DGT) for hereditary cancer genes is now a well-accepted clinical practice; however, the interpretation of DNA variation remains a challenge for laboratories and clinicians. Adding RNA genetic testing (RGT) enhances DGT by clarifying the clinical actionability of hereditary cancer gene variants, thus improving clinicians’ ability to accurately apply strategies for cancer risk reduction and treatment. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether RGT is associated with improvement in the diagnostic outcome of DGT and in the delivery of personalized cancer risk management for patients with hereditary cancer predisposition. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Diagnostic study in which patients and/or families with inconclusive variants detected by DGT in genes associated with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, Lynch syndrome, and hereditary diffuse gastric cancer sent blood samples for RGT from March 2016 to April 2018. Clinicians who ordered genetic testing and received a reclassification report for these variants were surveyed to assess whether RGT-related variant reclassifications changed clinical management of these patients. To quantify the potential number of tested individuals who could benefit from RGT, a cohort of 307 812 patients who underwent DGT for hereditary cancer were separately queried to identify variants predicted to affect splicing. Data analysis was conducted from March 2016 and September 2018. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Variant reclassification outcomes following RGT, clinical management changes associated with RGT-related variant reclassifications, and the proportion of patients who would likely be affected by a concurrent DGT and RGT multigene panel testing approach. RESULTS: In total, 93 if 909 eligible families (10.2%) submitted samples for RGT. Evidence from RGT clarified the interpretation of 49 of 56 inconclusive cases (88%) studied; 26 (47%) were reclassified as clinically actionable and 23 (41%) were clarified as benign. Variant reclassifications based on RGT results changed clinical management recommendations for 8 of 18 patients (44%) and 14 of 18 families (78%), based on responses from 18 of 45 clinicians (40%) surveyed. A total of 7265 of 307 812 patients who underwent DGT had likely pathogenic variants or variants of uncertain significance potentially affecting splicing, indicating that approximately 1 in 43 individuals could benefit from RGT. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this diagnostic study, conducting RNA testing resolved a substantial proportion of variants of uncertain significance in a cohort of individuals previously tested for cancer predisposition by DGT. Performing RGT might change the diagnostic outcome of at least 1 in 43 patients if performed in all individuals undergoing genetic evaluation for hereditary cancer. American Medical Association 2019-10-23 /pmc/articles/PMC6820040/ /pubmed/31642931 http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.13900 Text en Copyright 2019 Karam R et al. JAMA Network Open. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY-NC-ND License.
spellingShingle Original Investigation
Karam, Rachid
Conner, Blair
LaDuca, Holly
McGoldrick, Kelly
Krempely, Kate
Richardson, Marcy E.
Zimmermann, Heather
Gutierrez, Stephanie
Reineke, Patrick
Hoang, Lily
Allen, Kyle
Yussuf, Amal
Farber-Katz, Suzette
Rana, Huma Q.
Culver, Samantha
Lee, John
Nashed, Sarah
Toppmeyer, Deborah
Collins, Debra
Haynes, Ginger
Pesaran, Tina
Dolinsky, Jill S.
Tippin Davis, Brigette
Elliott, Aaron
Chao, Elizabeth
Assessment of Diagnostic Outcomes of RNA Genetic Testing for Hereditary Cancer
title Assessment of Diagnostic Outcomes of RNA Genetic Testing for Hereditary Cancer
title_full Assessment of Diagnostic Outcomes of RNA Genetic Testing for Hereditary Cancer
title_fullStr Assessment of Diagnostic Outcomes of RNA Genetic Testing for Hereditary Cancer
title_full_unstemmed Assessment of Diagnostic Outcomes of RNA Genetic Testing for Hereditary Cancer
title_short Assessment of Diagnostic Outcomes of RNA Genetic Testing for Hereditary Cancer
title_sort assessment of diagnostic outcomes of rna genetic testing for hereditary cancer
topic Original Investigation
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6820040/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31642931
http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.13900
work_keys_str_mv AT karamrachid assessmentofdiagnosticoutcomesofrnagenetictestingforhereditarycancer
AT connerblair assessmentofdiagnosticoutcomesofrnagenetictestingforhereditarycancer
AT laducaholly assessmentofdiagnosticoutcomesofrnagenetictestingforhereditarycancer
AT mcgoldrickkelly assessmentofdiagnosticoutcomesofrnagenetictestingforhereditarycancer
AT krempelykate assessmentofdiagnosticoutcomesofrnagenetictestingforhereditarycancer
AT richardsonmarcye assessmentofdiagnosticoutcomesofrnagenetictestingforhereditarycancer
AT zimmermannheather assessmentofdiagnosticoutcomesofrnagenetictestingforhereditarycancer
AT gutierrezstephanie assessmentofdiagnosticoutcomesofrnagenetictestingforhereditarycancer
AT reinekepatrick assessmentofdiagnosticoutcomesofrnagenetictestingforhereditarycancer
AT hoanglily assessmentofdiagnosticoutcomesofrnagenetictestingforhereditarycancer
AT allenkyle assessmentofdiagnosticoutcomesofrnagenetictestingforhereditarycancer
AT yussufamal assessmentofdiagnosticoutcomesofrnagenetictestingforhereditarycancer
AT farberkatzsuzette assessmentofdiagnosticoutcomesofrnagenetictestingforhereditarycancer
AT ranahumaq assessmentofdiagnosticoutcomesofrnagenetictestingforhereditarycancer
AT culversamantha assessmentofdiagnosticoutcomesofrnagenetictestingforhereditarycancer
AT leejohn assessmentofdiagnosticoutcomesofrnagenetictestingforhereditarycancer
AT nashedsarah assessmentofdiagnosticoutcomesofrnagenetictestingforhereditarycancer
AT toppmeyerdeborah assessmentofdiagnosticoutcomesofrnagenetictestingforhereditarycancer
AT collinsdebra assessmentofdiagnosticoutcomesofrnagenetictestingforhereditarycancer
AT haynesginger assessmentofdiagnosticoutcomesofrnagenetictestingforhereditarycancer
AT pesarantina assessmentofdiagnosticoutcomesofrnagenetictestingforhereditarycancer
AT dolinskyjills assessmentofdiagnosticoutcomesofrnagenetictestingforhereditarycancer
AT tippindavisbrigette assessmentofdiagnosticoutcomesofrnagenetictestingforhereditarycancer
AT elliottaaron assessmentofdiagnosticoutcomesofrnagenetictestingforhereditarycancer
AT chaoelizabeth assessmentofdiagnosticoutcomesofrnagenetictestingforhereditarycancer