There’s an established heritability for colorectal cancer hovering around 30%, though only roughly 5-10% is explained by known syndromes involving genes like APC, MSH2, and PTEN, among others – the rest is so-called “missing heritability”
In addition, traditional clinical measures like family history have not thus far been closely related to the identification of bona fide pathogenic mutations, so new studies are needed looking at a broader patient population to understand the patterns of these mutations
We were lucky to work with Pritchard, @quimmateo et al to establish an approach to looking at DNA repair germline mutations in #prostatecancer (nejm.org/doi/full/10.10…), so we wondered whether similar patterns were present in colon cancer using a case/control approach
In a cohort of 680 germline exomes from colon cancer patients, there was enrichment of bona fide pathogenic mutations in ATM and PALB2 when compared to a large cohort of ancestry-matched cancer-free adults
Tangentially, here is example number 2903840932 whereby @exac_exomes can have such a profound impact in areas of research that may have been hard to predict at the outset – thx again @dgmacarthur et al
We then extended this observation into thousands of unselected colon cancer cases (either typical or early onset cases), and where available looked at the somatic status of these genes in these patients
As a result, these findings may have potentially immediate practice changing implications re: genetic testing, and may open pathways for usage of therapies like PARP inhibitors in genetically defined colon cancer patient populations
Lastly, it’s worth noting we did not generate a single new exome for this study, but rather asked questions using data generated for other purposes - this has helped teach us on effective strategies for doing this prospectively to ask other clinically relevant questions <fin>
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
We analyzed every tumor-normal exome from patients getting immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) we could get & integrated w/ clinical outcomes for biological and clinical exploration → lots of technical pain here + open questions re: defining clinical benefit
For context, lots of ongoing biology re: mutations/neoantigens driving response to immune checkpoint blockade by many groups (including ours).
In parallel, lots of buzz about tumor mutational burden (TMB) as a *clinical* biomarker for cancer ICB...
Lots of discussion whether broad cancer NGS testing is good/bad given @JAMAOnc article below. Tbh I'm far more interested in some general issues it exposes re: prospectively testing the precision oncology hypothesis:
1) NGS testing w/o companion (early phase?) clinical trial network & mid-trial adjustments for when new approvals arise creates a ‘last mile’ problem that reduces potential impact. Can a precision oncology trial have experimental Rx access and be changed in real time? [2/4]
2) Dropping a complicated test of any kind on providers who have no prior training or expertise in its interpretation (when also paired with often…err…curious interpretations from vendors) will confound outcomes.
Reflecting on the recent/heated “hype vs. hope” precision oncology debates: It’s not “vs.” → real hope it engenders & current limitations are simultaneously true. This tension mirrors so much of oncology, as @Bob_Wachter elegantly points out here: nytimes.com/2018/04/19/opi… [1/n]
Thankfully, @DHymanMD captured this critical point clearly, here:
External Tweet loading...
If nothing shows, it may have been deleted
by @DHymanMD view original on Twitter
A recent 'back of the envelope' study noted only ~15% (~95k) metastatic cancer patients may get genome-informed Rx in 2018, & less achieve clinical benefit: jamanetwork.com/journals/jamao…
About two years ago, @stephanie_mul tallied the whole exome data we had & mapped it against theoretical power calculations @gaddyg set forth for discovering significant cancer genes in any cancer type (see: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24390350)