Abstract B104: Differentiating somatic and germline variants using targeted next-generation sequencing (NGS) of cell-free plasma DNA (cfDNA)
Authors: Oxnard Geoffrey R. , Sacher Adrian G. , Alden Ryan S. , Feeney Nora B. , Heng Jennifer C. , Nagy Rebecca J. , Lanman Richard B. , Paweletz Cloud P. , Janne Pasi A. 
Published: May 2016

Abstract
Introduction: Genomic analysis of cfDNA is emerging as a powerful tool for noninvasive characterization of advanced cancer. Some cfDNA assays are quantitative, allowing analysis of genomic subpopulations. Here, we sought to use quantitative cfDNA analysis to distinguish somatic and germline variants, gaining insight into cancer biology as well as inherited risk without needing paired germline DNA. To do this, we studied EGFR mutations in cfDNA aiming to distinguish those with somatic T790M, generally acquired after resistance to targeted therapy, from those with germline T790M, a rare allele associated with inherited lung cancer risk.
Methods & Results: We first explored an institutional cohort of lung cancer patients undergoing cfDNA genotyping using droplet digital PCR (ddPCR). We identified 64 patients positive for T790M and a concurrent EGFR driver mutation by ddPCR. For the vast majority of cases, the mutant allelic fraction (MAF) of T790M was lower than the MAF of the driver mutation, resulting in a T790M/driver ratio of 0.001-1. For two cases, T790M was the predominant mutation, with T790M/driver ratios of 4.2 and 54.6; MAF of T790M was 49% and 53% for these cases. Under an IRB-approved protocol (NCT01754025), we performed sequencing of DNA extracted from PBMCs which confirmed germline T790M in both.
We then submitted cfDNA from 3 patients with lung cancer and germline T790M for blinded NGS using the 68-gene Guardant360 assay. In each, NGS identified over 90 coding and non-coding variants. T790M was identified at a high MAF (56%, 50%, 49%) in the range of other recognized SNPs, while an EGFR driver mutation (L858R or L861Q) was identified at a lower level (23%, 4%, 1%) in the range of coding TP53 mutations. Each case was treated with a third-generation EGFR kinase inhibitor targeting T790M. NGS of post-treatment cfDNA demonstrated the expected response in the EGFR driver mutation (0.2%, 0%, 0%) but minimal change in the high MAF T790M (50%, 49%, 49%), consistent with persistent shed of germline DNA on therapy.
To broadly screen for germline T790M carriers, we queried a cohort of 1082 lung cancer patients who had undergone NGS of cfDNA using Guardant360. 74 were positive for EGFR T790M (median MAF 3%, range 0.2%-51%). 58 also harbored a second EGFR driver mutation (median MAF 5%), with 23 also having EGFR amplification (median MAF 16%). Four cases were identified with high MAF T790M in the expected range of SNPs (51%, 49%, 49%, 48%), but no driver EGFR mutations were identified at this high MAF. These 4 cases have been referred for germline testing on a prospective study of germline T790M (NCT01754025).
Conclusions: We have identified that quantitative cfDNA analysis with NGS can identify germline mutations through differentiation of high MAF germline variants from lower MAF somatic variants. In this cohort, 4 of 74 cases (5%) positive for T790M using NGS of cfDNA were consistent with a germline mutation. This ability to differentiate germline from somatic variants differentiates NGS of cfDNA from NGS of tumor specimens, where these distinctions are challenging without paired germline DNA. Diagnostic labs performing plasma NGS will need to be vigilant to identify these potential germline alterations, and will need strategies for reporting these to providers and patients as appropriate.
Citation Format: Geoffrey R. Oxnard, Adrian G. Sacher, Ryan S. Alden, Nora B. Feeney, Jennifer C. Heng, Rebecca J. Nagy, Richard B. Lanman, Cloud P. Paweletz, Pasi A. Janne. Differentiating somatic and germline variants using targeted next-generation sequencing (NGS) of cell-free plasma DNA (cfDNA). [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR-NCI-EORTC International Conference: Molecular Targets and Cancer Therapeutics; 2015 Nov 5-9; Boston, MA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Mol Cancer Ther 2015;14(12 Suppl 2):Abstract nr B104.