Abstract 1668: A comparative study of curated contents by knowledge-based curation system in cancer clinical sequencing
Authors: Takeda Masayuki , Sakai Kazuko , Shimizu Shigeki , Takahama Takayuki , Yoshida Takeshi , Watanabe Satomi , Iwasa Tsutomu , Yonesaka Kimio , Suzuki Shinichiro , Hayashi Hidetoshi , Kawakami Hisato , Nonagase Yoshikane , Tanaka Kaoru , Tsurutani Junji , Saigo Kazumasa , Ito Akihiko , Mitsudomi Tetsuya , Nakagawa Kazuhiko , Nishio Kazuto 
Published: August 2019

Background: Medical oncologists are challenged to personalize medicine with

scientific evidence, drug approvals, and treatment guidelines based on sequencing of clinical samples using next generation sequencer (NGS). Knowledge-based curation systems have the potential to help address this challenge. We report here the results of examining the level of evidence regarding treatment approval and clinical trials between recommendations made by Watson for Genomics (WfG), QIAGEN Clinical Insight Interpret (QCII), and Oncomine knowledge-based reporter (OKR).

Patients and methods: The tumor samples obtained from the solid cancer patients between May to June 2018 at Kindai University Hospital. The formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumor samples (n=31) were sequenced using Oncomine Comprehensive Assay v3. Variants including copy number alteration and gene fusions identified by the Ion reporter software were used commonly on three curation systems. Curation process of data were provided for 25 solid cancers using three curation systems independently. Concordance and distribution of curated evidence levels of variants were analyzed.

Results: As a result of sequencing analysis, nonsynonymous mutation (n=58), gene fusion (n=2) or copy number variants (n=12) were detected in 25 cases, and subsequently subjected to knowledge-based curation systems (WfG, OKR, and QCII). The number of curated information in any systems was 51/72 variants. Concordance of evidence levels was 65.3% between WfG and OKR, 56.9% between WFG and QCII, and 66.7% between OKR and QCII. WfG provided great number of clinical trials for the variants. The annotation of resistance information was also observed. The larger difference was observed in the clinical trials information. It was due to the different filtering process among three curation systems possibly.

Conclusion: This study demonstrates knowledge-based curation systems (WfG, OKR, and QCII) could be helpful tool for solid cancer treatment decision making. Difference in non-concordant evidence levels was observed between three curation systems, especially in the information of clinical trials. This point will be improved by standardized filtering procedure and enriched database of clinical trials in Japan.

Citation Format: Masayuki Takeda, Kazuko Sakai, Shigeki Shimizu, Takayuki Takahama, Takeshi Yoshida, Satomi Watanabe, Tsutomu Iwasa, Kimio Yonesaka, Shinichiro Suzuki, Hidetoshi Hayashi, Hisato Kawakami, Yoshikane Nonagase, Kaoru Tanaka, Junji Tsurutani, Kazumasa Saigo, Akihiko Ito, Tetsuya Mitsudomi, Kazuhiko Nakagawa, Kazuto Nishio. A comparative study of curated contents by knowledge-based curation system in cancer clinical sequencing [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2019; 2019 Mar 29-Apr 3; Atlanta, GA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(13 Suppl):Abstract nr 1668.