Diagnostic yield and clinical relevance of expanded genetic testing for cancer patients Journal Article


Authors: Ceyhan-Birsoy, O.; Jayakumaran, G.; Kemel, Y.; Misyura, M.; Aypar, U.; Jairam, S.; Yang, C.; Li, Y.; Mehta, N.; Maio, A.; Arnold, A.; Salo-Mullen, E.; Sheehan, M.; Syed, A.; Walsh, M.; Carlo, M.; Robson, M.; Offit, K.; Ladanyi, M.; Reis-Filho, J. S.; Stadler, Z. K.; Zhang, L.; Latham, A.; Zehir, A.; Mandelker, D.
Article Title: Diagnostic yield and clinical relevance of expanded genetic testing for cancer patients
Abstract: Background: Genetic testing (GT) for hereditary cancer predisposition is traditionally performed on selected genes based on established guidelines for each cancer type. Recently, expanded GT (eGT) using large hereditary cancer gene panels uncovered hereditary predisposition in a greater proportion of patients than previously anticipated. We sought to define the diagnostic yield of eGT and its clinical relevance in a broad cancer patient population over a 5-year period. Methods: A total of 17,523 cancer patients with a broad range of solid tumors, who received eGT at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center between July 2015 to April 2020, were included in the study. The patients were unselected for current GT criteria such as cancer type, age of onset, and/or family history of disease. The diagnostic yield of eGT was determined for each cancer type. For 9187 patients with five common cancer types frequently interrogated for hereditary predisposition (breast, colorectal, ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate cancer), the rate of pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants in genes that have been associated with each cancer type was analyzed. The clinical implications of additional findings in genes not known to be associated with a patients’ cancer type were investigated. Results: 16.7% of patients in a broad cancer cohort had P/LP variants in hereditary cancer predisposition genes identified by eGT. The diagnostic yield of eGT in patients with breast, colorectal, ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate cancer was 17.5%, 15.3%, 24.2%, 19.4%, and 15.9%, respectively. Additionally, 8% of the patients with five common cancers had P/LP variants in genes not known to be associated with the patient’s current cancer type, with 0.8% of them having such a variant that confers a high risk for another cancer type. Analysis of clinical and family histories revealed that 74% of patients with variants in genes not associated with their current cancer type but which conferred a high risk for another cancer did not meet the current GT criteria for the genes harboring these variants. One or more variants of uncertain significance were identified in 57% of the patients. Conclusions: Compared to targeted testing approaches, eGT can increase the yield of detection of hereditary cancer predisposition in patients with a range of tumors, allowing opportunities for enhanced surveillance and intervention. The benefits of performing eGT should be weighed against the added number of VUSs identified with this approach. © 2022, The Author(s).
Journal Title: Genome Medicine
Volume: 14
ISSN: 1756-994X
Publisher: Biomed Central Ltd  
Date Published: 2022-08-15
Start Page: 92
Language: English
DOI: 10.1186/s13073-022-01101-2
PUBMED: 35971132
PROVIDER: scopus
PMCID: PMC9377129
DOI/URL:
Notes: Article -- Export Date: 1 September 2022 -- Source: Scopus
Altmetric
Citation Impact
BMJ Impact Analytics
MSK Authors
  1. Kenneth Offit
    789 Offit
  2. Mark E Robson
    676 Robson
  3. Liying Zhang
    129 Zhang
  4. Zsofia Kinga Stadler
    391 Stadler
  5. Marc Ladanyi
    1328 Ladanyi
  6. Ahmet Zehir
    343 Zehir
  7. Angela Arnold
    42 Arnold
  8. Yelena Kemel
    103 Kemel
  9. Maria Isabel Carlo
    162 Carlo
  10. Aijazuddin Syed
    52 Syed
  11. Margaret Rebecca Graham Sheehan
    45 Sheehan
  12. Michael Francis Walsh
    156 Walsh
  13. Diana Lauren Mandelker
    178 Mandelker
  14. Ciyu   Yang
    26 Yang
  15. Yirong Li
    17 Li
  16. Sowmya Jairam
    13 Jairam
  17. Ozge Birsoy
    69 Birsoy
  18. Alicia Latham
    59 Latham
  19. Umut Aypar
    35 Aypar
  20. Anna Maio
    35 Maio
  21. Nikita Navinchandra Mehta
    16 Mehta
  22. Maksym Misyura
    13 Misyura