Advertisement

Mutation Yield of a Custom 212-Gene Next-Generation Sequencing Panel for Solid Tumors: Clinical Experience of the First 260 Cases Tested Using the JAX ActionSeq™ Assay

  • Pavalan Selvam
  • Meng-Chang Hsiao
  • Gregory Omerza
  • Daniel Bergeron
  • Shannon Rowe
  • Jasmina Uvalic
  • Melissa Soucy
  • Michael Peracchio
  • Shelbi Burns
  • Bridgette Meyers
  • Matthew Prego
  • Qian Nie
  • Guruprasad Ananda
  • Harshpreet Chandok
  • Kevin Kelly
  • Andrew Hesse
  • Honey V. ReddiEmail author
Original Research Article
First Online:

Abstract

Objective

The study aimed to retrospectively evaluate the positive yield rate of a custom 212-gene next-generation sequencing (NGS) panel, the JAX ActionSeq™ assay, used in molecular profiling of solid tumors for precision medicine.

Methods

We evaluated 261 cases tested over a 24-month period including cancers across 24 primary tissue types and report on the mutation yield in these cases.

Results

Thirty-three of the 261 cases (13%) had no detectable clinically significant variants. In the remaining 228 cases (87%), we identified 550 clinically significant variants in 88 of the 212 genes, with four of fewer clinically significant variants being detected in 62 of 88 genes (70%). TP53 had the highest number of variants (125), followed by APC (47), KRAS (47), ARID1A (20), PIK3CA (20) and EGFR (18). There were 38 tier I and 512 tier II variants, with two genes having only a tier I variant, seven genes having both a tier I and tier II variant, and 79 genes having at least one tier II variant. Overall, the ActionSeq™ assay detected clinically significant variants in 42% of the genes included in the panel (88/212), 68% of which (60/88) were detected in more than one tumor type.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates that of the genes with documented involvement in cancer, only a limited number are currently clinically significant from a therapeutic, diagnostic and/or prognostic perspective.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Conflict of Interest

The authors, Pavalan Selvam, Meng-Chang Hsiao, Gregory Omerza, Daniel Bergeron, Shannon Rowe, Jasmina Uvalic, Melissa Soucy, Michael Peracchio, Shelbi Burns, Bridgette Meyers, Matthew Prego, Qian Nie, Guruprasad Ananda, Harshpreet Chandok, Kevin Kelly, Andrew Hesse, and Honey V. Reddi, declare no relevant conflicts of interest.

Ethical Approval and Informed Consent

Review by institutional review committee was deemed not necessary because only data collected during regular patient testing were used.

Supplementary material

40291_2019_435_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (432 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 431 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Stratton MR, Campbell PJ, Futreal PA. The cancer genome. Nature. 2009;458(7239):719–24.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Garraway LA, Lander ES. Lessons from the cancer genome. Cell. 2013;153(1):17–37.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    King CR, Kraus MH, Aaronson SA. Amplification of a novel v-erbB-related gene in a human mammary carcinoma. Science. 1985;229(4717):974–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lindeman NI, Cagle PT, Beasley MB, Chitale DA, Dacic S, Giaccone G, Jenkins RB, Kwiatkowski DJ, Saldivar JS, Squire J, 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(7):823–59.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chapman PB, Hauschild A, Robert C, Haanen JB, Ascierto P, Larkin J, Dummer R, Garbe C, Testori A, Maio M, et al. Improved survival with vemurafenib in melanoma with BRAF V600E mutation. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(26):2507–16.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ellis MJ, Perou CM. The genomic landscape of breast cancer as a therapeutic roadmap. Cancer Discov. 2013;3(1):27–34.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Weng W, Feng J, Qin H, Ma Y. Molecular therapy of colorectal cancer: progress and future directions. Int J Cancer. 2015;136(3):493–502.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hyman DM, Puzanov I, Subbiah V, Faris JE, Chau I, Blay JY, Wolf J, Raje NS, Diamond EL, Hollebecque A, et al. Vemurafenib in multiple nonmelanoma cancers with BRAF V600 mutations. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(8):726–36.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Qin BD, Jiao XD, Liu K, Wu Y, He X, Liu J, Qin WX, Wang Z, Zang YS. Basket trials for intractable cancer. Front Oncol. 2019;9:229.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Collins FS, Varmus H. A new initiative on precision medicine. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(9):793–5.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lowy DR, Collins FS. Aiming high-changing the trajectory for cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(20):1901–4.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Frampton GM, Fichtenholtz A, Otto GA, Wang K, Downing SR, He J, Schnall-Levin M, White J, Sanford EM, An P, et al. Development and validation of a clinical cancer genomic profiling test based on massively parallel DNA sequencing. Nat Biotechnol. 2013;31(11):1023–31.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Singh RR, Patel KP, Routbort MJ, Reddy NG, Barkoh BA, Handal B, Kanagal-Shamanna R, Greaves WO, Medeiros LJ, Aldape KD, et al. Clinical validation of a next-generation sequencing screen for mutational hotspots in 46 cancer-related genes. J Mol Diagn. 2013;15(5):607–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Roychowdhury S, Iyer MK, Robinson DR, Lonigro RJ, Wu YM, Cao X, Kalyana-Sundaram S, Sam L, Balbin OA, Quist MJ, et al. Personalized oncology through integrative high-throughput sequencing: a pilot study. Sci Transl Med. 2011;3(111):111ra121.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nakagawa H, Fujita M. Whole genome sequencing analysis for cancer genomics and precision medicine. Cancer Sci. 2018;109(3):513–22.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sholl LM, Do K, Shivdasani P, Cerami E, Dubuc AM, Kuo FC, Garcia EP, Jia Y, Davineni P, Abo RP, et al. Institutional implementation of clinical tumor profiling on an unselected cancer population. JCI Insight. 2016;1(19):e87062.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Weinstein JN, Collisson EA, Mills GB, Shaw KR, Ozenberger BA, Ellrott K, Shmulevich I, Sander C, Stuart JM, Cancer Genome Atlas Research N. The Cancer Genome Atlas Pan-Cancer analysis project. Nat Genet. 2013;45(10):1113–20.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hudson TJ, Anderson W, Artez A, Barker AD, Bell C, Bernabe RR, Bhan MK, Calvo F, Eerola I, International Cancer Genome C, et al. International network of cancer genome projects. Nature. 2010;464(7291):993–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nagahashi M, Shimada Y, Ichikawa H, Kameyama H, Takabe K, Okuda S, Wakai T. Next generation sequencing-based gene panel tests for the management of solid tumors. Cancer Sci. 2019;110(1):6–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zehir A, Benayed R, Shah RH, Syed A, Middha S, Kim HR, Srinivasan P, Gao J, Chakravarty D, Devlin SM, et al. Mutational landscape of metastatic cancer revealed from prospective clinical sequencing of 10,000 patients. Nat Med. 2017;23(6):703–13.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    DePristo MA, Banks E, Poplin R, Garimella KV, Maguire JR, Hartl C, Philippakis AA, del Angel G, Rivas MA, Hanna M, et al. A framework for variation discovery and genotyping using next-generation DNA sequencing data. Nat Genet. 2011;43(5):491–8.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wilm A, Aw PP, Bertrand D, Yeo GH, Ong SH, Wong CH, Khor CC, Petric R, Hibberd ML, Nagarajan N. LoFreq: a sequence-quality aware, ultra-sensitive variant caller for uncovering cell-population heterogeneity from high-throughput sequencing datasets. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012;40(22):11189–201.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Li J, Lupat R, Amarasinghe KC, Thompson ER, Doyle MA, Ryland GL, Tothill RW, Halgamuge SK, Campbell IG, Gorringe KL. CONTRA: copy number analysis for targeted resequencing. Bioinformatics. 2012;28(10):1307–13.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Li MM, Datto M, Duncavage EJ, Kulkarni S, Lindeman NI, Roy S, Tsimberidou AM, Vnencak-Jones CL, Wolff DJ, Younes A, et al. Standards and guidelines for the interpretation and reporting of sequence variants in cancer: a joint consensus recommendation of the Association for Molecular Pathology, American Society of Clinical Oncology, and College of American Pathologists. J Mol Diagn. 2017;19(1):4–23.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rivlin N, Brosh R, Oren M, Rotter V. Mutations in the p53 tumor suppressor gene: important milestones at the various steps of tumorigenesis. Genes Cancer. 2011;2(4):466–74.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Goel G. Molecular characterization and biomarker identification in colorectal cancer: Toward realization of the precision medicine dream. Cancer Manag Res. 2018;10:5895–908.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Jonna S, Giaccone G, Subramaniam DS. Understanding molecular diagnostic technology in oncology through the lens of lung cancer. Discov Med. 2018;26(141):21–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Schildgen V, Schildgen O. The lonely driver or the orchestra of mutations? How next generation sequencing datasets contradict the concept of single driver checkpoint mutations in solid tumours - NSCLC as a scholarly example. Semin Cancer Biol. 2019;58:22–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    El-Deiry WS, Goldberg RM, Lenz HJ, Shields AF, Gibney GT, Tan AR, Brown J, Eisenberg B, Heath EI, Phuphanich S, et al. The current state of molecular testing in the treatment of patients with solid tumors, 2019. CA Cancer J Clin. 2019;69(4):305–43.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Horak P, Frohling S, Glimm H. Integrating next-generation sequencing into clinical oncology: strategies, promises and pitfalls. ESMO Open. 2016;1(5):e000094.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Al-Kateb H, Nguyen TT, Steger-May K, Pfeifer JD. Identification of major factors associated with failed clinical molecular oncology testing performed by next generation sequencing (NGS). Mol Oncol. 2015;9(9):1737–43.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Perri F, Pisconti S, Della Vittoria Scarpati G. P53 mutations and cancer: a tight linkage. Ann Transl Med. 2016;4(24):522.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Schell MJ, Yang M, Teer JK, Lo FY, Madan A, Coppola D, Monteiro AN, Nebozhyn MV, Yue B, Loboda A, et al. A multigene mutation classification of 468 colorectal cancers reveals a prognostic role for APC. Nat Commun. 2016;7:11743.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Crobach S, Ruano D, van Eijk R, Schrumpf M, Group P, Fleuren G, van Wezel T, Morreau H. Somatic mutation profiles in primary colorectal cancers and matching ovarian metastases: Identification of driver and passenger mutations. J Pathol Clin Res. 2016;2(3):166–74.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hatanpaa KJ, Burma S, Zhao D, Habib AA. Epidermal growth factor receptor in glioma: signal transduction, neuropathology, imaging, and radioresistance. Neoplasia. 2010;12(9):675–84.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Takeda T, Banno K, Okawa R, Yanokura M, Iijima M, Irie-Kunitomi H, Nakamura K, Iida M, Adachi M, Umene K, et al. ARID1A gene mutation in ovarian and endometrial cancers (Review). Oncol Rep. 2016;35(2):607–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Femi OF. Genetic alterations and PIK3CA gene mutations and amplifications analysis in cervical cancer by racial groups in the United States. Int J Health Sci (Qassim). 2018;12(1):28–32.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lievre A, Bachet JB, Le Corre D, Boige V, Landi B, Emile JF, Cote JF, Tomasic G, Penna C, Ducreux M, et al. KRAS mutation status is predictive of response to cetuximab therapy in colorectal cancer. Cancer Res. 2006;66(8):3992–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kwok G, Yau TC, Chiu JW, Tse E, Kwong YL. Pembrolizumab (Keytruda). Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2016;12(11):2777–89.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Zhao P, Li L, Jiang X, Li Q. Mismatch repair deficiency/microsatellite instability-high as a predictor for anti-PD-1/PD-L1 immunotherapy efficacy. J Hematol Oncol. 2019;12(1):54.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pavalan Selvam
    • 1
  • Meng-Chang Hsiao
    • 1
  • Gregory Omerza
    • 1
  • Daniel Bergeron
    • 1
  • Shannon Rowe
    • 1
  • Jasmina Uvalic
    • 1
  • Melissa Soucy
    • 1
  • Michael Peracchio
    • 1
  • Shelbi Burns
    • 1
  • Bridgette Meyers
    • 1
  • Matthew Prego
    • 1
  • Qian Nie
    • 1
  • Guruprasad Ananda
    • 1
  • Harshpreet Chandok
    • 1
  • Kevin Kelly
    • 1
  • Andrew Hesse
    • 1
  • Honey V. Reddi
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.FarmingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options