Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 May:31:101638.
doi: 10.1016/j.tranon.2023.101638. Epub 2023 Feb 18.

Older age should not be a barrier to testing for somatic variants in homologous recombination DNA repair-related genes in patients with high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma

Affiliations

Older age should not be a barrier to testing for somatic variants in homologous recombination DNA repair-related genes in patients with high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma

Omali Pitiyarachchi et al. Transl Oncol. 2023 May.

Abstract

Background: Somatic pathogenic variants (PVs) in homologous recombination DNA repair (HR)-related genes found in high-grade serous ovarian carcinomas (HGSC) are not well-characterised in older patients (≥70 years). This may reflect low testing rates in older patients.

Methods: Data from 1210 HGSC patients in AACR Project GENIE and 324 patients in an independent dataset INOVATe were analysed. Cases where somatic variants could be distinguished from germline variants were included, and analysis was restricted to those with a somatic TP53 variant, to ensure cases were HGSC.

Results: Of 1210 patients in GENIE, 27% (n = 325) were aged ≥70 years at testing. Patients with somatic-only PVs in BRCA2 were older compared with BRCA1 (median 71 vs 60 years, p = 0.002). Median age for 21 patients with somatic-only PVs in 11 other HR-related genes ranged from 40 to 67 years. In older patients, 7% (n = 22) had somatic BRCA1/2 PVs, and 1% (n = 2) had PVs other HR-related genes; this rate was not significantly different to younger patients (<70 years), 7% (n = 62) BRCA1/2 and 2% (n = 19) other HR-related genes (p = 0.36). The overall frequency of somatic BRCA1/2 PVs was similar in INOVATe (n = 25; 7.7%) and somatic-only BRCA2 PVs were again found in older patients compared with BRCA1 (median age: at testing, 70 vs 63 years; at diagnosis, 68 vs 60 years).

Conclusions: The overall frequency of somatic-only PVs in HR-related genes was similar in older and younger patients with HGSC, highlighting the importance of somatic testing irrespective of age. Limiting somatic testing by age may exclude patients who could benefit from maintenance poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors.

Keywords: Older patients; Ovarian cancer; Somatic testing.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. ADeF has received grant funding from AstraZeneca for unrelated work. All other authors reported no conflicts of interest related to this work.

Figures

Image, graphical abstract
Graphical abstract
Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Process of sample selection from AACR Project GENIE Cohort v11.0-public database .
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Age distribution of BRCA1/2 somatic-only pathogenic variants in GENIE and INOVATe. Median age at testing of patient samples is represented by a horizontal line with patient samples represented by coloured dots. Dashed line denotes age 70 years.

References

    1. Peres L.C., et al. Invasive epithelial ovarian cancer survival by histotype and disease stage. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2019;111(1):60–68. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Fourcadier E., et al. Under-treatment of elderly patients with ovarian cancer: a population based study. BMC Cancer. 2015;15:937. - PMC - PubMed
    1. United Nations, D., Population Division. World Population Prospects 2019. 2019 [cited 2021; Available from: http://population.un.org/wpp/.
    1. Sedrak M.S., et al. Older adult participation in cancer clinical trials: a systematic review of barriers and interventions. CA-Cancer J. Clin. 2021;71(1):78–92. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Scher K.S., Hurria A. Under-representation of older adults in cancer registration trials: known problem, little progress. J. Clin. Oncol. 2012;30(17):2036–2038. - PubMed