Germline-focused analysis of tumour-detected variants in 49,264 cancer patients: ESMO Precision Medicine Working Group recommendations

Germline; Tumour-only sequencingLínia germinal; Seqüenciació només de tumorsLínea germinal; Secuenciación solo de tumorsBackground The European Society for Medical Oncology Precision Medicine Working Group (ESMO PMWG) was reconvened to update its 2018/19 recommendations on follow-up of putative germline variants detected on tumour-only sequencing, which were based on an analysis of 17 152 cancers. Methods We analysed an expanded dataset including 49 264 paired tumour-normal samples. We applied filters to tumour-detected variants based on variant allele frequency, predicted pathogenicity and population variant frequency. For 58 cancer-susceptibility genes, we then examined the proportion of filtered tumour-detected variants of true germline origin [germline conversion rate (GCR)]. We conducted subanalyses based on the age of cancer diagnosis, specific tumour types and ‘on-tumour’ status (established tumour-gene association). Results Analysis of 45 472 nonhypermutated solid malignancy tumour samples yielded 21 351 filtered tumour-detected variants of which 3515 were of true germline origin. 3.1% of true germline pathogenic variants were absent from the filtered tumour-detected variants. For genes such as BRCA1, BRCA2 and PALB2, the GCR in filtered tumour-detected variants was >80%; conversely for TP53, APC and STK11 this GCR was <2%. Conclusion Strategic germline-focused analysis can prioritise a subset of tumour-detected variants for which germline follow-up will produce the highest yield of most actionable true germline variants. We present updated recommendations around germline follow-up of tumour-only sequencing including (i) revision to 5% for the minimum per-gene GCR, (ii) inclusion of actionable intermediate penetrance genes ATM and CHEK2, (iii) definition of a set of seven ‘most actionable’ cancer-susceptibility genes (BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6 and RET) in which germline follow-up is recommended regardless of tumour type.This work was supported by the European Society for Medical Oncology (no grant number)

Germline-focused analysis of tumour-detected variants in 49,264 cancer patients: ESMO Precision Medicine Working Group recommendations.

BACKGROUND: The European Society for Medical Oncology Precision Medicine Working Group (ESMO PMWG) was reconvened to update its 2018/19 recommendations on follow-up of putative germline variants detected on tumour-only sequencing, which were based on an analysis of 17 152 cancers. METHODS: We analysed an expanded dataset including 49 264 paired tumour-normal samples. We applied filters to tumour-detected variants based on variant allele frequency, predicted pathogenicity and population variant frequency. For 58 cancer-susceptibility genes, we then examined the proportion of filtered tumour-detected variants of true germline origin [germline conversion rate (GCR)]. We conducted subanalyses based on the age of cancer diagnosis, specific tumour types and 'on-tumour' status (established tumour-gene association). RESULTS: Analysis of 45 472 nonhypermutated solid malignancy tumour samples yielded 21 351 filtered tumour-detected variants of which 3515 were of true germline origin. 3.1% of true germline pathogenic variants were absent from the filtered tumour-detected variants. For genes such as BRCA1, BRCA2 and PALB2, the GCR in filtered tumour-detected variants was >80%; conversely for TP53, APC and STK11 this GCR was <2%. CONCLUSION: Strategic germline-focused analysis can prioritise a subset of tumour-detected variants for which germline follow-up will produce the highest yield of most actionable true germline variants. We present updated recommendations around germline follow-up of tumour-only sequencing including (i) revision to 5% for the minimum per-gene GCR, (ii) inclusion of actionable intermediate penetrance genes ATM and CHEK2, (iii) definition of a set of seven 'most actionable' cancer-susceptibility genes (BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6 and RET) in which germline follow-up is recommended regardless of tumour type

Repair of giant midline abdominal wall hernias: "components separation technique" versus prosthetic repair : interim analysis of a randomized controlled trial.

Contains fulltext : 51559.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)BACKGROUND: Reconstruction of giant midline abdominal wall hernias is difficult, and no data are available to decide which technique should be used. It was the aim of this study to compare the "components separation technique" (CST) versus prosthetic repair with e-PTFE patch (PR). METHOD: Patients with giant midline abdominal wall hernias were randomized for CST or PR. Patients underwent operation following standard procedures. Postoperative morbidity was scored on a standard form, and patients were followed for 36 months after operation for recurrent hernia. RESULTS: Between November 1999 and June 2001, 39 patients were randomized for the study, 19 for CST and 18 for PR. Two patients were excluded perioperatively because of gross contamination of the operative field. No differences were found between the groups at baseline with respect to demographic details, co-morbidity, and size of the defect. There was no in-hospital mortality. Wound complications were found in 10 of 19 patients after CST and 13 of 18 patients after PR. Seroma was found more frequently after PR. In 7 of 18 patients after PR, the prosthesis had to be removed as a consequence of early or late infection. Reherniation occurred in 10 patients after CST and in 4 patients after PR. CONCLUSIONS: Repair of abdominal wall hernias with the component separation technique compares favorably with prosthetic repair. Although the reherniation rate after CST is relatively high, the consequences of wound healing disturbances in the presence of e-PTFE patch are far-reaching, often resulting in loss of the prosthesis