Whole Exome Sequencing-based Homologous Recombination Deficiency Test for Epithelial Ovarian Cancer

Overview

Journal J Ovarian Res

Publisher Biomed Central

Date 2025 Jan 30

PMID 39885596

Authors

Ying-Cheng Chiang

Hsien-Neng Huang

Kuan-Ting Kuo

Wuh-Liang Hwu

Po-Han Lin

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: The homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) test is an important tool for identifying patients with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) benefit from the treatment with poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor (PARPi). Using whole exome sequencing (WES)-based platform can provide information of gene mutations and HRD score; however, the clinical value of WES-based HRD test was less validated in EOC.

Methods: We enrolled 40 patients with EOC in the training cohort and 23 in the validation cohort. The WES-based HRD score was calculated using the scarHRD software. We first evaluated the concordance of the HRD status defined by the Myriad MyChoice CDx and then assessed the value of HRD on clinical prognosis in patients with EOC.

Results: The HRD score defined by the WES-based test was positively correlated with that of the Myriad MyChoice CDx test (r = 0.82, p < 0.01) in the training cohort. In compared to HRD status of Myriad test, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the WES-based HRD test were 93.5% (29/31), 77.8% (7/9), 93.5% (29/31), and 77.8% (7/9), respectively. Patients with positive HRD status defined by WES-based scarHRD test and Myriad MyChoice CDx test were both highly associated with platinum sensitive response (both Fisher's exact test, p = 0.002) as well as the superior progression-free survival (both log-rank p = 0.002). The multi-variate Cox regression model incorporated with optimal debulking surgery showed that the recurrence risk was decreased in the patients with positive HRD status, either defined by Myriad MyChoice CDx test (Hazard ratio (HR) 0.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14-0.79, p = 0.013) or WES-based test Myriad MyChoice CDx test (HR 0.34, 95% CI 0.14-0.80, p = 0.014). Nine patients had mutations in the genes involved in HR DNA repair, and all of them were positive for HRD. In the validation group, 23 patients were defined as positive HRD by WES-based testing. Six positive HRD patients and 5 negative HRD patients received maintenance PARPi. The median responsive interval of PARPi was 17 months in positive HRD patients and 3 months in negative HRD patients.

Conclusion: The WES-based test is a potential option for determining the HRD status in EOC patients, and desires for further validation in large-scale cohorts.

References

Chiang Y, Lin P, Cheng W . Homologous Recombination Deficiency Assays in Epithelial Ovarian Cancer: Current Status and Future Direction. Front Oncol. 2021; 11:675972. PMC: 8551835. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.675972. View

Coleman R, Oza A, Lorusso D, Aghajanian C, Oaknin A, Dean A . Rucaparib maintenance treatment for recurrent ovarian carcinoma after response to platinum therapy (ARIEL3): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2017; 390(10106):1949-1961. PMC: 5901715. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32440-6. View

Seaby E, Pengelly R, Ennis S . Exome sequencing explained: a practical guide to its clinical application. Brief Funct Genomics. 2015; 15(5):374-84. DOI: 10.1093/bfgp/elv054. View

Coleman R, Fleming G, Brady M, Swisher E, Steffensen K, Friedlander M . Veliparib with First-Line Chemotherapy and as Maintenance Therapy in Ovarian Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2019; 381(25):2403-2415. PMC: 6941439. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1909707. View

Chiang Y, Chen C, Chiang C, Hsu T, Lin M, You S . Trends in incidence and survival outcome of epithelial ovarian cancer: 30-year national population-based registry in Taiwan. J Gynecol Oncol. 2013; 24(4):342-51. PMC: 3805915. DOI: 10.3802/jgo.2013.24.4.342. View

Abkevich V, Timms K, Hennessy B, Potter J, Carey M, Meyer L . Patterns of genomic loss of heterozygosity predict homologous recombination repair defects in epithelial ovarian cancer. Br J Cancer. 2012; 107(10):1776-82. PMC: 3493866. DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2012.451. View

Dottino J, Moss H, Lu K, Secord A, Havrilesky L . U.S. Food and Drug Administration-Approved Poly (ADP-Ribose) Polymerase Inhibitor Maintenance Therapy for Recurrent Ovarian Cancer: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 2019; 133(4):795-802. PMC: 7181403. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003171. View

Zhao E, Shen Y, Pleasance E, Kasaian K, Leelakumari S, Jones M . Homologous Recombination Deficiency and Platinum-Based Therapy Outcomes in Advanced Breast Cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2017; 23(24):7521-7530. DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-17-1941. View

Wang K, Li M, Hakonarson H . ANNOVAR: functional annotation of genetic variants from high-throughput sequencing data. Nucleic Acids Res. 2010; 38(16):e164. PMC: 2938201. DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkq603. View

10.

Lin P, Chen M, Tsai L, Lo C, Yen T, Huang T . Using next-generation sequencing to redefine BRCAness in triple-negative breast cancer. Cancer Sci. 2020; 111(4):1375-1384. PMC: 7156820. DOI: 10.1111/cas.14313. View

11.

Klek S, Heald B, Milinovich A, Ni Y, Abraham J, Mahdi H . Genetic Counseling and Germline Testing in the Era of Tumor Sequencing: A Cohort Study. JNCI Cancer Spectr. 2020; 4(3):pkaa018. PMC: 7306190. DOI: 10.1093/jncics/pkaa018. View

12.

Davis A, Tinker A, Friedlander M . "Platinum resistant" ovarian cancer: what is it, who to treat and how to measure benefit?. Gynecol Oncol. 2014; 133(3):624-31. DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.02.038. View

13.

Swisher E, Lin K, Oza A, Scott C, Giordano H, Sun J . Rucaparib in relapsed, platinum-sensitive high-grade ovarian carcinoma (ARIEL2 Part 1): an international, multicentre, open-label, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016; 18(1):75-87. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30559-9. View

14.

Lindemann K, Gao B, Mapagu C, Fereday S, Emmanuel C, Alsop K . Response rates to second-line platinum-based therapy in ovarian cancer patients challenge the clinical definition of platinum resistance. Gynecol Oncol. 2018; 150(2):239-246. DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2018.05.020. View

15.

Lord C, Ashworth A . The DNA damage response and cancer therapy. Nature. 2012; 481(7381):287-94. DOI: 10.1038/nature10760. View

16.

Watkins J, Irshad S, Grigoriadis A, Tutt A . Genomic scars as biomarkers of homologous recombination deficiency and drug response in breast and ovarian cancers. Breast Cancer Res. 2014; 16(3):211. PMC: 4053155. DOI: 10.1186/bcr3670. View

17.

Clark M, Chen R, Lam H, Karczewski K, Chen R, Euskirchen G . Performance comparison of exome DNA sequencing technologies. Nat Biotechnol. 2011; 29(10):908-14. PMC: 4127531. DOI: 10.1038/nbt.1975. View

18.

Sztupinszki Z, Diossy M, Krzystanek M, Reiniger L, Csabai I, Favero F . Migrating the SNP array-based homologous recombination deficiency measures to next generation sequencing data of breast cancer. NPJ Breast Cancer. 2018; 4:16. PMC: 6028448. DOI: 10.1038/s41523-018-0066-6. View

19.

Popova T, Manie E, Rieunier G, Caux-Moncoutier V, Tirapo C, Dubois T . Ploidy and large-scale genomic instability consistently identify basal-like breast carcinomas with BRCA1/2 inactivation. Cancer Res. 2012; 72(21):5454-62. DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-12-1470. View

20.

Takaya H, Nakai H, Takamatsu S, Mandai M, Matsumura N . Homologous recombination deficiency status-based classification of high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma. Sci Rep. 2020; 10(1):2757. PMC: 7026096. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-59671-3. View