» Articles » PMID: 38976819

Inherited Germline Variants in Urinary Tract Cancer: A Multicenter Whole-Exome Sequencing Analysis and Correlation With Clinical Features and Tumor Genomics

Abstract

Purpose: This study investigates a real-world multicenter cohort of patients with urinary tract cancer (UTC), with primary disease sites including the bladder, urethra, and upper tract, who enrolled for research molecular testing of their germline and tumor. The purpose of this study was to evaluate factors that could affect the likelihood of identifying a clinically actionable germline pathogenic variant (PV).

Methods: Patients with UTC were identified from 10 cancer institutes of the Oncology Research Information Exchange Network consortium. The data set comprised abstracted clinical data with germline and tumor genomic data, and comparative analyses were conducted.

Results: Clinically actionable germline PVs in cancer predisposition genes were identified in 16 (4.5%) of 354 patients. A higher proportion of patients with the urethra and the upper tract as the primary sites of disease had PVs with a prevalence of 11% (5/45), compared with only 3.6% (11/308) in those with the bladder as the primary site of disease ( = .04). There were no significant differences in markers of genomic instability (such as tumor mutational burden, microsatellite instability [MSI], and loss of heterozygosity, copy number, and chromosomal instability) between those with PVs and those without ( > .05). Of the PVs identified, 10 (62%) were in homologous recombination repair (HRR) genes, three (19%) in mismatch repair (MMR) genes, and three (19%) in genes associated with other pathways.

Conclusion: Tissue-based assessment of genomic instability, such as MSI, does not reliably indicate germline PV. A comprehensive clinical germline testing approach that includes HRR genes in addition to MMR genes is likely to yield PVs in approximately one of 10 patients with nonbladder primary disease sites such as the upper tract and the urethra.

References
1.
Carlo M, Ravichandran V, Srinavasan P, Bandlamudi C, Kemel Y, Ceyhan-Birsoy O . Cancer Susceptibility Mutations in Patients With Urothelial Malignancies. J Clin Oncol. 2019; 38(5):406-414. PMC: 7351337. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.19.01395. View

2.
Pejaver V, Byrne A, Feng B, Pagel K, Mooney S, Karchin R . Calibration of computational tools for missense variant pathogenicity classification and ClinGen recommendations for PP3/BP4 criteria. Am J Hum Genet. 2022; 109(12):2163-2177. PMC: 9748256. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2022.10.013. View

3.
Nassar A, Abou Alaiwi S, AlDubayan S, Moore N, Mouw K, Kwiatkowski D . Prevalence of pathogenic germline cancer risk variants in high-risk urothelial carcinoma. Genet Med. 2019; 22(4):709-718. PMC: 7118025. DOI: 10.1038/s41436-019-0720-x. View

4.
Tang Q, Zuo W, Wan C, Xiong S, Xu C, Yuan C . Comprehensive genomic profiling of upper tract urothelial carcinoma and urothelial carcinoma of the bladder identifies distinct molecular characterizations with potential implications for targeted therapy & immunotherapy. Front Immunol. 2023; 13:1097730. PMC: 9936149. DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.1097730. View

5.
Doroshow D, ODonnell P, Hoffman-Censits J, Gupta S, Vaishampayan U, Heath E . Phase II Trial of Olaparib in Patients With Metastatic Urothelial Cancer Harboring DNA Damage Response Gene Alterations. JCO Precis Oncol. 2023; 7:e2300095. DOI: 10.1200/PO.23.00095. View