A classification system for clinical relevance of somatic variants identified in molecular profiling of cancer

Genetics in Medicine

Volumn 18, Issue 2, 2016, Pages 128-136

  Sukhai, Mahadeo A ^a,b   Craddock, Kenneth J ^a,b   Thomas, Mariam ^a,b   Hansen, Aaron R ^b   Zhang, Tong ^a,b   Siu, Lillian ^b   Bedard, Philippe ^b   Stockley, Tracy L ^a,b,c   Kamel Reid, Suzanne ^a,b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY HEALTH NETWORK   (Canada)

^b PRINCESS MARGARET HOSPITAL   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

clinical actionability; clinical relevance; molecular profiling of cancer; next generation sequencing; somatic variant classification

Indexed keywords

ADVANCED CANCER; ARTICLE; CANCER GENETICS; CANCER PATIENT; CANCER RECURRENCE; CLASSIFICATION; GENETIC VARIABILITY; HISTOLOGY; HUMAN; NEXT GENERATION SEQUENCING; ONCOLOGIST; TUMOR LOCALIZATION; BREAST TUMOR; COHORT ANALYSIS; COLORECTAL TUMOR; EVALUATION STUDY; GENETIC PROCEDURES; GENETIC SCREENING; GENETIC VARIATION; GENETICS; NEOPLASM; PILOT STUDY; PROCEDURES;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; COHORT STUDIES; COLORECTAL NEOPLASMS; GENETIC TECHNIQUES; GENETIC TESTING; GENETIC VARIATION; HUMANS; NEOPLASMS; PILOT PROJECTS;

EID: 84957699623     PISSN: 10983600     EISSN: 15300366     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/gim.2015.47     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Richards CS, Bale S, Bellissimo DB., et al.; Molecular Subcommittee of the ACMG Laboratory Quality Assurance Committee. ACMG recommendations for standards for interpretation and reporting of sequence variations: Revisions 2007. Genet Med 2008; 10: 294-300
2. Plon SE, Eccles DM, Easton D., et al.; IARC Unclassified Genetic Variants Working Group. Sequence variant classification and reporting: recommendations for improving the interpretation of cancer susceptibility genetic test results. Hum Mutat 2008; 29: 1282-1291
3. Eggington JM, Bowles KR, Moyes K., et al. A comprehensive laboratory-based program for classification of variants of uncertain significance in hereditary cancer genes. Clin Genet 2014; 86: 229-237
4. Crockett DK, Ridge PG, Wilson AR., et al. Consensus: a framework for evaluation of uncertain gene variants in laboratory test reporting. Genome Med 2012; 4: 48
5. Wallis Y, Payne S, McAnulty C., et al. Practice Guidelines for the Evaluation of Pathogenicity and the Reporting of Sequence Variants in Clinical Molecular Genetics. UK Clinical Molecular Genetics Society, Dutch Society of Clinical Genetic Laboratory Specialists, 2013
6. American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Incidental findings in clinical genomics: a clarification. Genet Med 2013; 15: 664-666
7. Van Allen EM, Wagle N, Stojanov P., et al. Whole-exome sequencing and clinical interpretation of formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tumor samples to guide precision cancer medicine. Nat Med 2014; 20: 682-688
8. Lindeman NI, Cagle PT, Beasley MB., et al. Molecular testing guideline for selection of lung cancer patients for EGFR and ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitors: guideline from the College of American Pathologists, International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, and Association for Molecular Pathology. J Thorac Oncol 2013; 8: 823-859
9. Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) Working Group. Recommendations from the EGAPP Working Group: can testing of tumor tissue for mutations in EGFR pathway downstream effector genes in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer improve health outcomes by guiding decisions regarding anti-EGFR therapy?. Genet Med 2013; 15: 517-527
10. Douillard JY, Oliner KS, Siena S., et al. Panitumumab-FOLFOX4 treatment and RAS mutations in colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2013; 369: 1023-1034
11. Gonzalez D, Fearfield L, Nathan P., et al. BRAF mutation testing algorithm for vemurafenib treatment in melanoma: recommendations from an expert panel. Br J Dermatol 2013; 168: 700-707
12. Sosman JA, Kim KB, Schuchter L., et al. Survival in BRAF V600-mutant advanced melanoma treated with vemurafenib. N Engl J Med 2012; 366: 707-714
13. Thomas A, Rajan A, Lopez-Chavez A, Wang Y, Giaccone G. From targets to targeted therapies and molecular profiling in non-small cell lung carcinoma. Ann Oncol 2013; 24: 577-585
14. MacConaill LE, Van Hummelen P, Meyerson M, Hahn WC. Clinical implementation of comprehensive strategies to characterize cancer genomes: opportunities and challenges. Cancer Discov 2011; 1: 297-311
15. Gargis AS, Kalman L, Berry MW., et al. Assuring the quality of next-generation sequencing in clinical laboratory practice. Nat Biotechnol 2012; 30: 1033-1036
16. Rehm HL, Bale SJ, Bayrak-Toydemir P., et al.; Working Group of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics Laboratory Quality Assurance Commitee. ACMG clinical laboratory standards for next-generation sequencing. Genet Med 2013; 15: 733-747
17. Tennessen JA, Bigham AW, O?Connor TD., et al.; Broad GO; Seattle GO; NHLBI Exome Sequencing Project. Evolution and functional impact of rare coding variation from deep sequencing of human exomes. Science 2012; 337: 64-69
18. Forbes SA, Bindal N, Bamford S., et al. COSMIC: mining complete cancer genomes in the Catalogue of Somatic Mutations in Cancer. Nucleic Acids Res 2011; 39(Database issue): D945-D950
19. Cerami E, Gao J, Dogrusoz U., et al. The cBio cancer genomics portal: an open platform for exploring multidimensional cancer genomics data. Cancer Discov 2012; 2: 401-404
20. Guyatt G, Eikelboom JW, Akl EA., et al. A guide to GRADE guidelines for the readers of JTH. J Thromb Haemost 2013; 11: 1603-1608
21. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Schünemann HJ, Tugwell P, Knottnerus A. GRADE guidelines: a new series of articles in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64: 380-382
22. Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA., et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64: 383-394
23. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R., et al. GRADE guidelines: 2. Framing the question and deciding on important outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64: 395-400
24. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist G., et al. GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence-study limitations (risk of bias). J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64: 407-415
25. Guyatt GH, Thorlund K, Oxman AD., et al. GRADE guidelines: 13. Preparing summary of findings tables and evidence profiles-continuous outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 2013; 66: 173-183
26. Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) Working Group. The EGAPP initiative: lessons learned. Genet Med 2014; 16: 217-224
27. Cancer Genome Atlas Network. Comprehensive molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature 2012; 490: 61-70
28. Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network. Genomic and epigenomic landscapes of adult de novo acute myeloid leukemia. N Engl J Med 2013; 368: 2059-2074
29. Nakayama N, Nakayama K, Yeasmin S., et al. KRAS or BRAF mutation status is a useful predictor of sensitivity to MEK inhibition in ovarian cancer. Br J Cancer 2008; 99: 2020-2028
30. Chapman PB, Hauschild A, Robert C., et al.; BRIM-3 Study Group. Improved survival with vemurafenib in melanoma with BRAF V600E mutation. N Engl J Med 2011; 364: 2507-2516
31. Flaherty KT, Infante JR, Daud A., et al. Combined BRAF and MEK inhibition in melanoma with BRAF V600 mutations. N Engl J Med 2012; 367: 1694-1703
32. Corcoran RB, Ebi H, Turke AB., et al. EGFR-mediated re-Activation of MAPK signaling contributes to insensitivity of BRAF mutant colorectal cancers to RAF inhibition with vemurafenib. Cancer Discov 2012; 2: 227-235
33. Janku F, Wheler JJ, Naing A., et al. PIK3CA mutation H1047R is associated with response to PI3K/AKT/mTOR signaling pathway inhibitors in early-phase clinical trials. Cancer Res 2013; 73: 276-284
34. Janku F, Hong DS, Fu S., et al. Assessing PIK3CA and PTEN in early-phase trials with PI3K/AKT/mTOR inhibitors. Cell Rep 2014; 6: 377-387
35. Ramirez-Ardila DE, Helmijr JC, Look MP., et al. Hotspot mutations in PIK3CA associate with first-line treatment outcome for aromatase inhibitors but not for tamoxifen. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2013; 139: 39-49
36. Barretina J, Caponigro G, Stransky N., et al. The Cancer Cell Line Encyclopedia enables predictive modelling of anticancer drug sensitivity. Nature 2012; 483: 603-607
37. Garnett MJ, Edelman EJ, Heidorn SJ., et al. Systematic identification of genomic markers of drug sensitivity in cancer cells. Nature 2012; 483: 570-575
38. Papillon-Cavanagh S, De Jay N, Hachem N., et al. Comparison and validation of genomic predictors for anticancer drug sensitivity. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2013; 20: 597-602
39. Begley CG, Ellis LM. Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature 2012; 483: 531-533
40. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Schünemann HJ. GRADE guidelines-An introduction to the 10th-13th articles in the series. J Clin Epidemiol 2013; 66: 121-123