Use of Whole-Genome Sequencing to Diagnose a Cryptic Fusion Oncogene

Department of Medicine, Washington University, St Louis, Missouri, USA.
JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association (Impact Factor: 30.39). 04/2011; 305(15):1577-84. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2011.497
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Whole-genome sequencing is becoming increasingly available for research purposes, but it has not yet been routinely used for clinical diagnosis.
To determine whether whole-genome sequencing can identify cryptic, actionable mutations in a clinically relevant time frame. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENT: We were referred a difficult diagnostic case of acute promyelocytic leukemia with no pathogenic X-RARA fusion identified by routine metaphase cytogenetics or interphase fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). The case patient was enrolled in an institutional review board-approved protocol, with consent specifically tailored to the implications of whole-genome sequencing. The protocol uses a "movable firewall" that maintains patient anonymity within the entire research team but allows the research team to communicate medically relevant information to the treating physician.
Clinical relevance of whole-genome sequencing and time to communicate validated results to the treating physician.
Massively parallel paired-end sequencing allowed identification of a cytogenetically cryptic event: a 77-kilobase segment from chromosome 15 was inserted en bloc into the second intron of the RARA gene on chromosome 17, resulting in a classic bcr3 PML-RARA fusion gene. Reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction sequencing subsequently validated the expression of the fusion transcript. Novel FISH probes identified 2 additional cases of t(15;17)-negative acute promyelocytic leukemia that had cytogenetically invisible insertions. Whole-genome sequencing and validation were completed in 7 weeks and changed the treatment plan for the patient.
Whole-genome sequencing can identify cytogenetically invisible oncogenes in a clinically relevant time frame.


Available from: Shashikant Kulkarni, Jun 03, 2015
1 Follower
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Next-generation tumor sequencing (NGTS) panels, which include multiple established and novel targets across cancers, are emerging in oncology practice, but lack formal positive coverage by US payers. Lack of coverage may impact access and adoption. This study identified challenges of NGTS coverage by private payers. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 14 NGTS experts on potential NGTS benefits, and with 10 major payers, representing more than 125,000,000 enrollees, on NGTS coverage considerations. We used the framework approach of qualitative research for study design and thematic analyses and simple frequencies to further describe findings. All interviewed payers see potential NGTS benefits, but all noted challenges to formal coverage: 80% state that inherent features of NGTS do not fit the medical necessity definition required for coverage, 70% view NGTS as a bundle of targets versus comprehensive tumor characterization and may evaluate each target individually, and 70% express skepticism regarding new evidence methods proposed for NGTS. Fifty percent of payers expressed sufficient concerns about NGTS adoption and implementation that will preclude their ability to issue positive coverage policies. Payers perceive that NGTS holds significant promise but, in its current form, poses disruptive challenges to coverage policy frameworks. Proactive multidisciplinary efforts to define the direction for NGTS development, evidence generation, and incorporation into coverage policy are necessary to realize its promise and provide patient access. This study contributes to current literature, as possibly the first study to directly interview US payers on NGTS coverage and reimbursement. Copyright © 2015 by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.
    Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network: JNCCN 03/2015; 13(3):311-8. · 4.24 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The 'omics revolution is facilitating a personalized approach to improving outcome by refining diagnosis, staging, treatment, and monitoring of hepatocellular carcinoma. Furthermore, the promise of being able to target a range of specific tumor drivers at a molecular level offers exciting new therapy prospects for a disease that is notoriously difficult to treat. We provide a unique perspective combining our understanding of the molecular mechanisms of hepatocellular carcinoma development with the potential of circulating tumor cells and radiogenomics to change the drivers of decision-making used in current practice.
    American Journal of Clinical Oncology 09/2014; DOI:10.1097/COC.0000000000000123 · 2.61 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is a clonal disorder of the blood forming cells characterized by accumulation of immature blast cells in the bone marrow and peripheral blood. Being a heterogeneous disease, AML has been the subject of numerous studies that focus on unraveling the clinical, cellular and molecular variations with the aim to better understand and treat the disease. Cytogenetic-risk stratification of AML is well established and commonly used by clinicians in therapeutic management of cases with chromosomal abnormalities. Successive inclusion of novel molecular abnormalities has substantially modified the classification and understanding of AML in the past decade. With the advent of next generation sequencing (NGS) technologies the discovery of novel molecular abnormalities has accelerated. NGS has been successfully used in several studies and has provided an unprecedented overview of molecular aberrations as well as the underlying clonal evolution in AML. The extended spectrum of abnormalities discovered by NGS is currently under extensive validation for their prognostic and therapeutic values. In this review we highlight the recent advances in the understanding of AML in the NGS era.
    BMC Genomics 01/2015; 16(1). DOI:10.1186/1471-2164-16-S1-S5 · 4.04 Impact Factor