Search

Germline DDX41 variants are the most common mutations predisposing to acute myeloid leukemia (AML)/myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) in adults, but the causal variant (CV) landscape and clinical spectrum of hematologic malignancies (HMs) remain unexplored. Here, we analyzed the genomic profiles of 176 patients with HM carrying 82 distinct presumably germline DDX41 variants among a group of 9821 unrelated patients. Using our proposed DDX41-specific variant classification, we identified features distinguishing 116 patients with HM with CV from 60 patients with HM with variant of uncertain significance (VUS): an older age (median 69 years), male predominance (74% in CV vs 60% in VUS, P = .03), frequent concurrent somatic DDX41 variants (79% in CV vs 5% in VUS, P < .0001), a lower somatic mutation burden (1.4 ± 0.1 in CV vs 2.9 ± 0.04 in VUS, P = .012), near exclusion of canonical recurrent genetic abnormalities including mutations in NPM1, CEBPA, and FLT3 in AML, and favorable overall survival (OS) in patients with AML/MDS. This superior OS was determined independent of blast count, abnormal karyotypes, and concurrent variants, including TP53 in patients with AML/MDS, regardless of patient’s sex, age, or specific germline CV, suggesting that germline DDX41 variants define a distinct clinical entity. Furthermore, unrelated patients with myeloproliferative neoplasm and B-cell lymphoma were linked by DDX41 CV, thus expanding the known disease spectrum. This study outlines the CV landscape, expands the phenotypic spectrum in unrelated DDX41-mutated patients, and underscores the urgent need for gene-specific diagnostic and clinical management guidelines.

Germline DDX41 variants in myeloid neoplasms (MNs) are not uncommon, and we explored the prevalence and characterized the clinical and pathologic features in a cohort of 3132 unrelated adult MN patients. By targeted next-generation sequencing, we identified 28 patients (20 men and 8 women) with pathogenic germline DDX41 variants who developed acute myeloid leukemia (AML), in which only 3 (11%) had a family history (FH) of MNs. A subacute clinical course of cytopenia (mean duration of 11.2 months, range 0-72 months) prior to the initial AML diagnosis was accompanied by a low blast count (median at 30%, range 20-70%) in hypocellular marrows (93% of all patients), in vast contrast to the typical proliferative subtypes of AML in the elderly. Most patients had a normal karyotype (75%) and acquired a second DDX41 variant (69%). A favorable overall survival (OS) was observed in comparison to that of common subtypes of AML with wild-type DDX41 in age-matched patients. Our study demonstrated that the frequent germline pathogenic DDX41 variants characterized a clinically distinct AML entity. Features characteristic of DDX41-mutated AML include male predominance, often lack of FH, indolent course, low proliferative potential, frequent somatic DDX41 variants, and a favorable OS.

Genetic testing is becoming an integral part of healthcare, but evidence suggests that both race and ethnicity influence access to and utilization of genetic testing. Given this barrier, data are needed on the perceptions of genetic testing in racial and ethnic minority groups. The purpose of this study was to explore the perceptions of three types of genetic testing (genetic testing for adult-onset conditions, prenatal screening, and newborn screening) in a sample of US participants who identified as White, Pacific Islander, and Latinx (10 dyads from each group for 60 participants total). Data were collected through semi-structured dyadic interviews and assessed using thematic analysis. The major themes were knowledge as empowering, knowledge as stressful, and predictive nature of prenatal testing and newborn screening. Some differences were seen in themes by race and ethnicity. A sense of collective and familial health appeared to be a more important theme for Pacific Islander and Latinx participants compared to White participants. Adult-onset genetic testing was viewed variously across all groups with some noting how it may increase anxiety, particularly if the disease screened for was unable to be prevented with action. All three groups reported on the positives of prenatal testing and newborn screening yet often were confused on the differences between them. This study presents novel perceptions of genetic testing in participants from diverse communities across three types of genetic testing. Genetic healthcare providers should incorporate participants’ perceptions, values, and beliefs into their counseling delivery as a way to engage with diverse communities.

PURPOSE As tumor genomic profiling (TGP) is increasingly used to help guide cancer treatment, BRCA variants, which may or may not be reflective of the germline genome, are being identified. As TGP use increases, it is becoming an important tool for referral to genetic counseling and identifying patients with hereditary cancer syndromes such as hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. This study explores genetic counseling referral patterns and germline implications of patients found to have pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants identified through TGP. METHODS Participants include patients at Huntsman Cancer Institute undergoing TGP through a single commercial laboratory between March 2014 and July 2018. A retrospective chart review was conducted for 62 patients found to have pathogenic variants (PVs) in BRCA1/2 on TGP. Data on genetic counseling referrals and uptake, germline test results, family history, and patient demographics were collected. RESULTS In the study time frame, 1,899 patients underwent TGP. Testing identified 67 PVs in BRCA1 (23 variants) or BRCA2 (44 variants) in 62 patients. Thirty-five patients first received a referral to a genetic counselor following TGP with 33 patients completing genetic counseling. Of the 30 patients who pursued germline genetic testing following TGP, 11 were discovered to have a previously unknown germline BRCA PV. Nine of these patients were the first in their family diagnosed with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. CONCLUSION This study represents one institution's experience with genetic counseling referrals, uptake, and germline results following TGP. For some patients, TGP will be the first indicator of an underlying hereditary condition. Identifying patients with PVs (which may be germline) through TGP is an important new genetic counseling referral tool that can have important implications for the patient and their family.

X-linked lymphoproliferative disease type 1 (XLP1) is a primary immunodeficiency disorder caused by pathogenic variants in the SH2D1A gene (SH2 domain containing protein 1A). Patients with XLP1 may present acutely with fulminant infectious mononucleosis, hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis, and/or B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (B-NHL). We report a boy who developed 2 clonally distinct B-NHL 4 years apart and was found to have previously unrecognized XLP1. The report highlights the importance of clonal analysis and XLP1 testing in males with presumed late recurrences of B-NHL, and the role of allogeneic stem cell transplant (allo-SCT) in XLP1 patients and their affected male relatives.

Primary care nurse practitioners routinely care for patients with personal or family histories of cancer. Approximately 5% to 10% of all cancers are related to hereditary cancer syndromes (HCSs),1 which cause an increased risk for developing more cancers and cancers at earlier ages than the general population. Nurse practitioners in primary care must become comfortable with identifying patients at risk for HCSs. Ordering genetic tests can be a challenge because the number of genetic tests available is growing at a rapid pace. This case highlights a woman who survived breast cancer at age 25 and basal cell carcinoma at age 33.

PURPOSE To compare the classification of genetic variants reported on tumor genomic profiling (TGP) reports with germline classifications on clinical test results and ClinVar. Results will help to inform germline testing discussions and decisions in patients with tumor variants in genes that are relevant to hereditary cancer risk. PATIENTS AND METHODS This study compared somatic and germline classifications of small nucleotide variants in the following genes: BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, PALB2, ATM, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2. Somatic classifications were taken from reports from a single commercial TGP laboratory of tests ordered by providers at Huntsman Cancer Institute between March 2014 and June 2018. Somatic variant interpretations were compared with classifications from germline test results as well as with ClinVar interpretations. RESULTS Of the 623 variants identified on TGP, 353 had a definitive classification in ClinVar, and 103 were assayed with a germline test, with 66 of the variants tested observed in germline. Analysis of somatic variants of uncertain significance listed on TGP reports determined that 22% had a different interpretation compared with ClinVar and that 32% differed from the interpretation on a germline test result. Pathogenic variants on TGP test results were found to differ 13% and 5% of the time compared with ClinVar interpretations and germline test results, respectively. CONCLUSION These results suggest that TGP variants are often classified differently in a germline context. Differences may be due to different processes in variant interpretation between somatic and germline laboratories. These results are important for health care providers to consider when making decisions about additional testing for hereditary cancer risks.

BACKGROUND: Inherited germline TP53 pathogenic and likely pathogenic mutations (gTP53) cause autosomal dominant multicancer predisposition including Li-Fraumeni syndrome (LFS). However, there is no known association of prostate cancer with gTP53. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether gTP53 predisposes to prostate cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This multi-institutional retrospective study characterizes prostate cancer incidence in a cohort of LFS males and gTP53 prevalence in a prostate cancer cohort. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: We evaluated the spectrum of gTP53 variants and clinical features associated with prostate cancer. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: We identified 31 prostate cancer cases among 163 adult LFS males, including 26 of 54 aged ≥50 yr. Among 117 LFS males without prostate cancer at the time of genetic testing, six were diagnosed with prostate cancer over a median (interquartile range [IQR]) of 3.0 (1.3–7.2) yr of follow-up, a 25-fold increased risk (95% confidence interval [CI] 9.2–55; p < 0.0001). We identified gTP53 in 38 of 6850 males (0.6%) in the prostate cancer cohort, a relative risk 9.1-fold higher than that of population controls (95% CI 6.2–14; p < 0.0001; gnomAD). We observed hotspots at the sites of attenuated mutations not associated with classic LFS. Two-thirds of available gTP53 prostate tumors had somatic inactivation of the second TP53 allele. Among gTP53 prostate cancer cases in this study, the median age at diagnosis was 56 (IQR: 51–62) yr, 42% had Gleason ≥8 tumors, and 30% had advanced disease at diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Complementary analyses of prostate cancer incidence in LFS males and gTP53 prevalence in prostate cancer cohorts suggest that gTP53 predisposes to aggressive prostate cancer. Prostate cancer should be considered as part of LFS screening protocols and TP53 considered in germline prostate cancer susceptibility testing. PATIENT SUMMARY: Inherited mutations in the TP53 gene are likely to predispose men to aggressive prostate cancer.

Germline DDX41 variants in myeloid neoplasms (MNs) are not uncommon, and we explored the prevalence and characterized the clinical and pathologic features in a cohort of 3132 unrelated adult MN patients. By targeted next-generation sequencing, we identified 28 patients (20 men and 8 women) with pathogenic germline DDX41 variants who developed acute myeloid leukemia (AML), in which only 3 (11%) had a family history (FH) of MNs. A subacute clinical course of cytopenia (mean duration of 11.2 months, range 0-72 months) prior to the initial AML diagnosis was accompanied by a low blast count (median at 30%, range 20-70%) in hypocellular marrows (93% of all patients), in vast contrast to the typical proliferative subtypes of AML in the elderly. Most patients had a normal karyotype (75%) and acquired a second DDX41 variant (69%). A favorable overall survival (OS) was observed in comparison to that of common subtypes of AML with wild-type DDX41 in age-matched patients. Our study demonstrated that the frequent germline pathogenic DDX41 variants characterized a clinically distinct AML entity. Features characteristic of DDX41-mutated AML include male predominance, often lack of FH, indolent course, low proliferative potential, frequent somatic DDX41 variants, and a favorable OS.

The peripheral blood (PB) is broadly used as a source of germline tissue for next generation sequencing in both clinical and research settings. Incidental or secondary findings are often uncovered at the time of germline sequencing. Current guidelines focus on secondary findings as they relate to inherited cancer predisposition. However, sequencing done on the PB has the potential of uncovering cancer-associated somatic variants. Somatic variants in genes associated with hematologic malignancies could indicate the presence of clonal hematopoiesis, clonal cytopenias or in rare instances an undiagnosed hematologic malignancy. In this abstract, we describe leukemia-associated somatic variants identified through whole exome sequencing (WES) in the PB of genomic research participants. A total of 24 patients with clonal hematopoiesis were identified from our institutional cohort of the ORIEN avatar study of 807 patients with solid tumors. Pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants were selected from protein coding sequences and splice sites of 64 genes involved in hematologic malignancies. Matched tumor and PB samples allowed for inclusion of variants found exclusively in the PB sample. Chart reviews were performed, and blood indices were collected for patients with clonal hematopoiesis variants. The median age of patients in this cohort was 73 years old (range 42-82) and 54% (n=13) were still living at the time of chart review. There were 27 variants distributed amongst 24 patients with 8% (n=2) of patients having 2 or more variants identified. The median reported variant allele frequencies (VAF) was 0.447. Most variants were missense (n=14) followed by stop gain (n=5), frameshift (n=3), splice site (n=3), stop lost (n=1), and inframe insertion (n=1). TP53 and DNMT3A (n=4) variants were identified most frequently followed by JAK2, KRAS, MYD88 (n=3), and PTEN (n=2). The rest of the genes accounted for one variant each, including TET2 and IDH2. Complete blood count (CBC) values were recorded for WBC, Hgb, MCV, RDW, platelets, and ANC, 79% (n=19) of patients had abnormal CBCs. No patients in this cohort were seen by a hematologist. Our results indicate that approximately 3% of patients identified in a research based solid tumor cohort had clonal hematopoiesis. Most of these patients had abnormalities in their hematologic parameters and would likely benefit from referral to hematology. Our data demonstrate the importance of considering somatic variation when the PB is used as germline tissue in research settings. Clonal hematopoiesis has significant clinical consequences ranging from risk of blood cancers to cardiovascular disease. We argue for the need to establish accepted frameworks for identification and evaluation of clonal hematopoiesis in participants of genomics research. Further analysis of associations between incidence of CHIP, cancer type, and prior treatment are underway Citation Format: Jennie Vagher, Aaron Atkinson, Mikaela Larson, David Nix, Andrew Post, Courtney Scaife, Jonathan Tward, Cindy Matsen, Jason P. Hunt, Marcus Monroe, Mia Hashibe, Deborah M. Stephens, Nicola J. Camp, Wallace L. Akerley, Trudy Oliver, Douglas Grossman, Sheri L. Holmen, Howard Colman, Randy Jensen, Kevin B. Jones, Afaf E. Osman. Germline tissue sequencing in patients with solid tumors uncovers clonal hematopoiesis variants [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2022; 2022 Apr 8-13. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(12_Suppl):Abstract nr 5901.

Childhood leukemia is the most common pediatric malignancy, diagnosed in nearly a third of pediatric cancer patients. Awareness and identification of the hereditary component of childhood leukemia continues to increase. Childhood leukemia, especially acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), has been attributed to a dysregulated immune system with different patterns of infectious exposure at a young age. Candidate gene studies have revealed inconsistent associations with specific SNPs related to folate metabolism, xenobiotic metabolism, DNA repair, immunity, and B-cell development. More recently, genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have demonstrated stronger associations with SNPs in B-cell development genes and increased risk for childhood ALL. Identical twins have been described with childhood leukemia due to presumed placental transfer, but non-twin siblings with childhood leukemia also have been very rarely reported suggesting a genetic link to disease susceptibility. In this chapter, we review the known hereditary cancer syndromes associated with leukemia which can be divided into six categories: (1) DNA repair syndromes, (2) RASopathies, (3) bone marrow failure syndromes, (4) immunodeficiency syndromes, (5) germline predisposition to leukemia, and (6) congenital syndromes.

Germline variants in tumor suppressor genes (TSGs) can result in RNA mis-splicing and predisposition to cancer. However, identification of variants that impact splicing remains a challenge, contributing to a substantial proportion of patients with suspected hereditary cancer syndromes remaining without a molecular diagnosis. To address this, we used capture RNA-sequencing (RNA-seq) to generate a splicing profile of 18 TSGs (APC, ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, BRIP1, CDH1, CHEK2, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, MUTYH, NF1, PALB2, PMS2, PTEN, RAD51C, RAD51D, and TP53) in 345 whole-blood samples from healthy donors. We subsequently demonstrated that this approach can detect mis-splicing by comparing splicing profiles from the control dataset to profiles generated from whole blood of individuals previously identified with pathogenic germline splicing variants in these genes. To assess the utility of our TSG splicing profile to prospectively identify pathogenic splicing variants, we performed concurrent capture DNA and RNA-seq in a cohort of 1000 patients with suspected hereditary cancer syndromes. This approach improved the diagnostic yield in this cohort, resulting in a 9.1% relative increase in the detection of pathogenic variants, demonstrating the utility of performing simultaneous DNA and RNA genetic testing in a clinical context.

Soft tissue sarcoma (STS) most often occurs sporadically, but can also arise in the setting of a germline cancer predisposition syndrome (CPS). There is significant diversity amongst STS diagnoses as these tumors exhibit a variety of histologies, occur in all age groups, and can occur in any location in the body. This diversity is also reflected in the many known associated germline cancer predisposition associations. Some STS diagnoses, such as anaplastic rhabdomyosarcoma, are associated with high heritability and other STS, such as Ewing sarcoma, are notably absent from known CPS. Recognizing when a STS is more likely to be hereditary can influence clinical management. Individuals diagnosed with STS due to CPS may be at risk for other malignancies and should undergo additional surveillance for early detection. Additionally, family members should undergo genetic testing as they also may be at risk to develop STS and other CPS-associated malignancies. Some underlying cancer predisposition diagnoses may have implications for the treatment of a concurrent malignancy as in the case of PARP inhibitor therapy in the setting of homologous recombination deficiency. This review summarizes current knowledge of selected STS and their associations with CPS.

Introduction: Germline pathogenic variants in DDX41 represent the most common predisposition to myeloid neoplasms accounting for 1-4% of patients (pts). Myeloid neoplasm with germ line DDX41 mutation is included as a separate entity in the revised 2016 World Health Organization classification of myeloid neoplasms and acute leukemia. The risk to develop any myeloid neoplasm in individuals with pathogenic germline DDX41 variants is modest, estimated to be about 20-30%. The recent inclusion of DDX41 on next generation sequencing panel (NGS) for myeloid neoplasms has led to increase in identification of DDX41 variants. Identification of germline DDX41 variants in MDS/AML pts will inform on donor selection and genetic testing of family members who are potential hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) donors is critical to eliminate the risk for transmission of a donor derived leukemia. Herein, we describe 10 pts with acute myeloid leukemia who were identified to have a DDX41 variantsince January 2020. Methods Among the pts diagnosed with acute myeloid leukemia in Utah between January 2020 and April 2021, 10 pts were identified to have a DDX41 variant on myeloid NGS panel (peripheral blood or bone marrow) performed at the time of diagnosis (9 pts) or through genetic testing performed on cultured skin fibroblasts (1 pt). When possible, pts with met a genetic counselor and germline genetic testing was performed utilizing DNA obtained from cultured skin fibroblasts through GeneDX Laboratory and Prevention Genetics. DDX41 variants are classified (Table 1) as per the ACMG criteria. Results Of the 10 pts with a DDX41 variant on myeloid NGS panel, 9 (90%) were diagnosed with AML. One pt (10%, Pt 9)) was initially diagnosed as AML and subsequently classified as mixed phenotype T/myeloid leukemia on repeat marrow evaluation after failure of initial induction based on blasts co-expressing cytoplasmic CD3 and MPO. The DDX41 variant was classified as pathogenic and variant of uncertain significance (VUS) in 6 (60%) and 4 (40%) pts, respectively. The variant allele frequency (VAF) of DDX41 variants was above 35% in all pts (Table1). Seven pts had germline testing performed from cultured skin fibroblasts, all were found to have germline DDX41 variants. Three pts did not undergo germline genetic testing, but the VAFs were highly suggestive of germline origin. Baseline demographics and the AML disease characteristics are outlined in Table 1. ELN risk category was unknown in 1 pt (10%), favorable in 1 pt (10%), intermediate in 3 pts (30%) and adverse in 5 pts (50%). Karyotype was normal in6 pts (60%), 20 q deletion in one pt and a complex in 2 pts (20%). Other somatic variants identified on the myeloid NGS panel are outlined in Table 1. First line treatment included intensive chemotherapy in 6 pts (60%) and 4 pts (40%) received hypomethylating agent based (HMA) therapy. Seven pts achieved a complete remission (CR), after first line treatment, of whom 5 received intensive chemo and 2 received HMA based treatment. One pt who received HMA therapy failed to achieve CR or CRi (pt 5), achieved CR after receiving intensive chemo for salvage. One pt failed initial induction with idarubicin and cytarabine (7+3 regimen) and achieved CR after reinduction with cycle 1 A of HyperCVAD. 5 pts relapsed after first line treatment (2 after intensive chemo and 3 after HMA based treatment). At the time of this report, 2 pts received allogeneic stem cell transplant (allo-SCT) both from unrelated donors and 3 pts died. Conclusion: In our experience, AML pts with germline DDX41 variant presented after fifth decade similarly to sporadic AML. Most pts had pathogenic variants in DDX41 (per ACMG), though 3 pts were classified as uncertain variants which represent an area of further knowledge. The majority of the pts had a normal karyotype at diagnosis. A second somatic DDX41 variant was observed in 2 pts. ASXL1 mutations were observed in 3 pts. Inclusion of the DDX41 gene in a myeloid NGS panel is necessary to identify this subset of pts and in addition germline testing should also be considered for all MDS/AML pts with age Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Tashi: PharmaEssentia: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory Board. Shami: JSK Therapeutics: Consultancy, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bastion Biologics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Chimerix: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Chimerix: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Aptevo: Research Funding. Kovacsovics: Stemline: Honoraria; Novartis: Research Funding; Amgen Inc.: Research Funding; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceutials: Honoraria. Maese: Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Tantravahi: Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie Inc.: Research Funding; CTI BioPharma: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding.

Germline pathogenic variants (PVs) in DNA-repair genes have garnered increasing attention in metastatic prostate cancer, and more patients are having somatic and germline DNA testing performed. Interpretation of germline DNA testing is a novel challenge for many clinicians, and the results of germline DNA-repair gene testing have significant implications for men with advanced prostate cancer and their children and siblings. Here, we report the case of a man with metastatic castration-refractory prostate cancer and a pathogenic, germline BRCA2 variant. We discuss the significance of his referral to a high-risk genetics clinic and the unique targeted therapy that he responded to.

680 Background: Somatic tumor testing may identify germline pathogenic variants (PV) associated with cancer predisposition syndromes. Labs differ whether they offer somatic only or paired germline analysis. Methods used by somatic testing labs, even those that include germline analysis, differ from designated germline labs that have optimized the identification of germline PV. Methods: Chart reviews were performed for patients who had testing through both somatic and designated germline laboratories. Cases with discrepant results in which germline PV were not detected by the somatic laboratory are summarized. Results: Nine cases with discrepant results. Five had paired germline testing and 4 somatic testing only. All 9 patients met the criteria to undergo designated germline testing, either for Lynch syndrome (3) or BRCA1/2 testing (6), based on personal and/or family history. Designated germline testing identified 4 MLH1, 1 BRCA1, 2 ATM, 1 MUTYH and 1 RAD50 PV not reported by the somatic labs’ tumor or germline analysis; 2 MLH1 PV were called variants of uncertain significance by somatic testing but classified as PV by ClinVar and designated germline labs. Three PV identified by designated germline labs are targets for PARP inhibitors and resulted in different treatment options. Three of the MLH1 PV were identified in patients meeting Lynch Syndrome test criteria while 1 was identified in a patient meeting BRCA1/2 criteria. Among the 5 other patients meeting BRCA1/2 test criteria, 3 had PV in breast cancer genes (2 ATM, 1 BRCA1) and 2 had PV in other cancer genes ( MUTYH and RAD50) not reported by the somatic labs, highlighting the importance of panel testing. Conclusions: Methods used by somatic labs, regardless of inclusion of germline analysis, are not equivalent to those of designated germline labs. Overlooked germline PV may miss identification of hereditary syndromes and targeted therapy opportunities (e.g. Anti-PD1 immunotherapy, PARP inhibitors). Patients meeting criteria for genetic evaluation should be referred for designated germline testing regardless of somatic testing outcomes.