Search

Purpose: Increased access and utilization of tumor profiling of cancers in our veteran population uncovered a modest number of potentially pathogenic germline variants (PPGVs) that require genetics referral for follow-up evaluation and germline sequencing. Challenges identified specific to the veteran population include paucity of genetics providers, either at a veteran's VA facility or nearby non-VA facilities. We sought to investigate the number of veterans who would benefit from having such resources at both local and national levels., Methods: Annotated clinical reports of mutations identified by tumor-only profiling and medical records of veterans with solid tumors at the Veterans Administration Ann Arbor Healthcare System (VA AAHS) between 2015 and 2020 were reviewed. PPGVs were identified according to society recommendations (such as ESMO and American Board of Medical Genetics and Genomics), expert review, and/or previously published criteria. After the analysis of our local VA population, these same criteria were then applied to veterans in the National Precision Oncology Program (NPOP)., Results: Two hundred eight veterans underwent tumor profiling at the VA AAHS over the defined time period. This included 20 different primary tumor sites with over half (n = 130) being advanced cancer at diagnosis. Of these, 18 veterans (8.5%) had mutations suggestive of a PPGV. Applying these criteria to the larger NPOP database (n = 20,014), a similar percentage (6%) of PPGVs were identified., Conclusion: These results indicate a PPGV frequency (6%-9% of veterans) consistent with the prevalence of inherited cancer predisposition syndromes in the general population, underscoring the need for medical genetics as part of standard oncologic care for veterans. We explore current and future care delivery models to optimize incorporation of medical genetics and genetic counseling to best serve veterans needing such services., Competing Interests: Arathi MohanStock and Other Ownership Interests: Johnson and Johnson, Pfizer, Viatris, EI Dupont Michael J. KelleyResearch Funding: Novartis (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), Regeneron (Inst), Genentech (Inst)Other Relationship: IBM (Inst)Open Payments Link: https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov/physician/827136 Nithya RamnathResearch Funding: Merck (Inst), Clovis Oncology (Inst), Clovis Oncology (Inst)No other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Immunotherapy for cancer is now a standard pillar in the armamentarium of treatments for many cancers. Immune checkpoint inhibitors, in particular, have resulted in significant therapeutic benefit and prolongation of survival in solid organ cancers, such as melanoma and lung cancer. However, the extent of benefit is not uniform. There are several groups studying predictors of benefit from these therapies. Recently, there has been a burgeoning interest in studying predictive biomarkers from the blood. These markers include circulating tumor DNA, circulating tumor cells, lymphocyte subpopulations, exosomes and metabolites to name a few. The logistics involved in such biomarker work are complex and rigorous with potential to impact a given study. Such pre-analytic components include development of a rigorous protocol, standard operating procedures for collection and storage of various blood components, ethics of patient consent, personnel involved as well as budget considerations. In this primer, we lay out representative aspects of each of the aforementioned components as a guide to blood-based biomarker research for immunotherapy studies in cancer., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)