Abstract 392: Patient-specific, tiered, variant-level actionability correlates with functional effect in growth survival assay

Amber M. Johnson, P. Ng, Michael Kahle, J. Castillo, Bianca E. Amador, Vijaykumar Holla, Thuy Vu, Le Huang, Fei Su, Sun-Hee Kim, Jia Zeng, Abu Shufean, Tara Conway, K. Shaw, T. Yap, J. Rodón, F. Meric-Bernstam
{"title":"Abstract 392: Patient-specific, tiered, variant-level actionability correlates with functional effect in growth survival assay","authors":"Amber M. Johnson, P. Ng, Michael Kahle, J. Castillo, Bianca E. Amador, Vijaykumar Holla, Thuy Vu, Le Huang, Fei Su, Sun-Hee Kim, Jia Zeng, Abu Shufean, Tara Conway, K. Shaw, T. Yap, J. Rodón, F. Meric-Bernstam","doi":"10.1158/1538-7445.AM2021-392","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: There is increasing recognition that variants within an actionable gene may differ in their functional impact and therapeutic implications. The Precision Oncology Decision Support (PODS) team at MD Anderson Cancer Center (MDA) curates a knowledgebase of cancer-associated genomic alterations for their functional impact and therapeutic actionability. However, a substantial number of variants are not characterized within the published literature. In the MDA-PODS classification scheme, these variants are classified as “potentially” actionable, as opposed to “unknown”, if evidence exists that other variants within the same region are oncogenic. To determine the value of this tiered actionability approach, we assessed if a variant with a “potentially” assertion is more likely to have an experimentally validated oncogenic effect within a functional genomics platform (Ng et al., Cancer Cell, 2018). Procedures: Alterations researched within the published literature and found to be of unknown significance were submitted to the functional genomics platform. These variants were tested within two cell line models (Ba/F3 and MCF10A) to assess growth factor-independent survival. Results were returned to PODS indicating whether the variant conferred a change in cell viability compared with the wildtype gene. PODS then compared the functional effect of the variant with the predetermined actionability assertion. Results: During 2015-2019, PODS received functional genomics results for 485 alterations spanning 38 genes. 115 (24%) of the alterations increased survival and were thus actionable, while 364 (75%) had no effect or suppressed cell viability. Six alterations had conflicting effects in the two cell line models and were not further considered. Of the 479 variants (in 38 genes), 208 variants (43%) in 20 genes were classified as “potentially” actionable prior to functional genomics, while 254 variants (53%) in 35 genes were classified as “unknown”. 17 (4%) were classified as Yes/No for actionability based on other criteria, such as drug response. 78 (38%) of the 208 “potentially” actionable variants were found to be oncogenic in the functional genomics platform as opposed to only 29 (11%) of the 254 variants classified as “unknown” for actionability (p Conclusions: These data display the value of providing a tiered, variant-level actionability scheme that includes a “potentially” actionable assertion, as it is associated with a greater likelihood of being functionally validated. Although genomically-matched therapy is most compelling for patients with known actionable variants and functional testing adds value, tiered actionability predictions can inform therapeutic decisions. Citation Format: Amber Johnson, Patrick Kwok-Shing Ng, Michael Kahle, Julia Castillo, Bianca Amador, Vijaykumar Holla, Thuy Vu, Le Huang, Fei Su, Sunhee Kim, Jia Zeng, Md Abu Shufean, Tara Conway, Kenna R. Shaw, Timothy A. Yap, Jordi Rodon, Funda Meric-Bernstam. Patient-specific, tiered, variant-level actionability correlates with functional effect in growth survival assay [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021; 2021 Apr 10-15 and May 17-21. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(13_Suppl):Abstract nr 392.","PeriodicalId":10518,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Research (Excluding Clinical Trials)","volume":"37 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Research (Excluding Clinical Trials)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7445.AM2021-392","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: There is increasing recognition that variants within an actionable gene may differ in their functional impact and therapeutic implications. The Precision Oncology Decision Support (PODS) team at MD Anderson Cancer Center (MDA) curates a knowledgebase of cancer-associated genomic alterations for their functional impact and therapeutic actionability. However, a substantial number of variants are not characterized within the published literature. In the MDA-PODS classification scheme, these variants are classified as “potentially” actionable, as opposed to “unknown”, if evidence exists that other variants within the same region are oncogenic. To determine the value of this tiered actionability approach, we assessed if a variant with a “potentially” assertion is more likely to have an experimentally validated oncogenic effect within a functional genomics platform (Ng et al., Cancer Cell, 2018). Procedures: Alterations researched within the published literature and found to be of unknown significance were submitted to the functional genomics platform. These variants were tested within two cell line models (Ba/F3 and MCF10A) to assess growth factor-independent survival. Results were returned to PODS indicating whether the variant conferred a change in cell viability compared with the wildtype gene. PODS then compared the functional effect of the variant with the predetermined actionability assertion. Results: During 2015-2019, PODS received functional genomics results for 485 alterations spanning 38 genes. 115 (24%) of the alterations increased survival and were thus actionable, while 364 (75%) had no effect or suppressed cell viability. Six alterations had conflicting effects in the two cell line models and were not further considered. Of the 479 variants (in 38 genes), 208 variants (43%) in 20 genes were classified as “potentially” actionable prior to functional genomics, while 254 variants (53%) in 35 genes were classified as “unknown”. 17 (4%) were classified as Yes/No for actionability based on other criteria, such as drug response. 78 (38%) of the 208 “potentially” actionable variants were found to be oncogenic in the functional genomics platform as opposed to only 29 (11%) of the 254 variants classified as “unknown” for actionability (p Conclusions: These data display the value of providing a tiered, variant-level actionability scheme that includes a “potentially” actionable assertion, as it is associated with a greater likelihood of being functionally validated. Although genomically-matched therapy is most compelling for patients with known actionable variants and functional testing adds value, tiered actionability predictions can inform therapeutic decisions. Citation Format: Amber Johnson, Patrick Kwok-Shing Ng, Michael Kahle, Julia Castillo, Bianca Amador, Vijaykumar Holla, Thuy Vu, Le Huang, Fei Su, Sunhee Kim, Jia Zeng, Md Abu Shufean, Tara Conway, Kenna R. Shaw, Timothy A. Yap, Jordi Rodon, Funda Meric-Bernstam. Patient-specific, tiered, variant-level actionability correlates with functional effect in growth survival assay [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021; 2021 Apr 10-15 and May 17-21. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(13_Suppl):Abstract nr 392.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
392:在生长生存测定中,患者特异性、分层、变异水平的可操作性与功能效应相关
目的:越来越多的人认识到,一个可操作基因的变异可能在其功能影响和治疗意义上有所不同。MD安德森癌症中心(MDA)的精确肿瘤学决策支持(PODS)团队为癌症相关基因组改变的功能影响和治疗可操作性策划了一个知识库。然而,大量的变体并没有在已发表的文献中被描述。在MDA-PODS分类方案中,如果有证据表明同一区域内的其他变异是致癌的,则这些变异被归类为“潜在的”可操作的,而不是“未知的”。为了确定这种分层可操作性方法的价值,我们在功能基因组学平台上评估了具有“潜在”断言的变体是否更有可能具有实验验证的致癌效应(Ng等人,Cancer Cell, 2018)。程序:在已发表的文献中研究发现的未知意义的改变提交到功能基因组学平台。这些变异在两种细胞系模型(Ba/F3和MCF10A)中进行了测试,以评估不依赖生长因子的生存。结果返回给pod,表明与野生型基因相比,该变体是否赋予细胞活力变化。然后,PODS将变体的功能效果与预先确定的可操作性断言进行比较。结果:2015-2019年期间,PODS获得了38个基因的485个改变的功能基因组学结果。115例(24%)的改变增加了存活,因此是可操作的,而364例(75%)没有影响或抑制细胞活力。六种改变在两种细胞系模型中有相互冲突的影响,没有进一步考虑。在479个变异(38个基因)中,20个基因中的208个变异(43%)在功能基因组学之前被归类为“潜在”可操作,而35个基因中的254个变异(53%)被归类为“未知”。17例(4%)根据其他标准(如药物反应)可操作性被分类为“是”/“否”。在功能基因组学平台上,208个“潜在”可操作的变异中有78个(38%)被发现是致癌的,而254个变异中只有29个(11%)被归类为可操作性“未知”(p)。结论:这些数据显示了提供分层的变异水平可操作方案的价值,该方案包括一个“潜在”可操作的断言,因为它与功能验证的可能性更大。虽然基因组匹配治疗对于已知可操作变异的患者最具吸引力,功能测试增加了价值,但分层可操作性预测可以为治疗决策提供信息。引文格式:Amber Johnson, Patrick kwook - shing Ng, Michael Kahle, Julia Castillo, Bianca Amador, Vijaykumar Holla, Thuy Vu, Le Huang, Fei Su, Sunhee Kim, Jia Zeng, Md Abu Shufean, Tara Conway, Kenna R. Shaw, Timothy A. Yap, Jordi Rodon, Funda Meric-Bernstam。在生长生存测定中,患者特异性、分层、变异水平的可操作性与功能效应相关[摘要]。见:美国癌症研究协会2021年年会论文集;2021年4月10日至15日和5月17日至21日。费城(PA): AACR;癌症杂志,2021;81(13 -增刊):摘要第392期。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Abstract 470: Evaluation of two receptor tyrosine kinase (ROS1) clones by immunohistochemistry Abstract 586: Expression of CD68 on CKpos/CD45poscirculating cells in breast cancer patients: An additional hint supporting the fusion hybrid theory Abstract 401: Comparison of molecular response calculations for prediction of patient outcome Abstract LB061: On-target peripheral and tumor immune microenvironment modulation in patients treated with lacnotuzumab (anti-CSF1, MCS110) + spartalizumab Abstract 550: Cell-free DNA alterations in theAR/enhancer locus measured before AR signaling inhibition portend poor overall survival in metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer patients
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1