Somatic structural variants (SVs), which are variants that typically impact >50 nucleotides, play a significant role in cancer development and evolution but are notoriously more difficult to detect than small variants from short-read next-generation sequencing (NGS) data. This is due to a combination of challenges attributed to the purity of tumour samples, tumour heterogeneity, limitations of short-read information from NGS and sequence alignment ambiguities. In spite of active development of SV detection tools (callers) over the past few years, each method has inherent advantages and limitations. In this review, we highlight some of the important factors affecting somatic SV detection and compared the performance of seven commonly used SV callers. In particular, we focus on the extent of change in sensitivity and precision for detecting different SV types and size ranges from samples with differing variant allele frequencies and sequencing depths of coverage. We highlight the reasons for why some SV callers perform well in some settings but not others, allowing our evaluation findings to be extended beyond the seven SV callers examined in this paper. As the importance of large SVs become increasingly recognized in cancer genomics, this paper provides a timely review on some of the most impactful factors influencing somatic SV detection that should be considered when choosing SV callers.

Background: While critical insights have been gained from evaluating the genomic landscape of metastatic prostate cancer, utilizing this information to inform personalized treatment is in its infancy. We performed a retrospective pilot study to assess the current impact of precision medicine for locally advanced and metastatic prostate adenocarcinoma and evaluate how genomic data could be harnessed to individualize treatment. Methods: Deep whole genome-sequencing was performed on 16 tumour-blood pairs from 13 prostate cancer patients; whole genome optical mapping was performed in a subset of 9 patients to further identify large structural variants. Tumour samples were derived from prostate, lymph nodes, bone and brain. Results: Most samples had acquired genomic alterations in multiple therapeutically relevant pathways, including DNA damage response (11/13 cases), PI3K (7/13), MAPK (10/13) and Wnt (9/13). Five patients had somatic copy number losses in genes that may indicate sensitivity to immunotherapy (LRP1B, CDK12, MLH1) and one patient had germline and somatic BRCA2 alterations. Conclusions: Most cases, whether primary or metastatic, harboured therapeutically relevant alterations, including those associated with PARP inhibitor sensitivity, immunotherapy sensitivity and resistance to androgen pathway targeting agents. The observed intra-patient heterogeneity and presence of genomic alterations in multiple growth pathways in individual cases suggests that a precision medicine model in prostate cancer needs to simultaneously incorporate multiple pathway-targeting agents. Our whole genome approach allowed for structural variant assessment in addition to the ability to rapidly reassess an individual’s molecular landscape as knowledge of relevant biomarkers evolve. This retrospective oncological assessment highlights the genomic complexity of prostate cancer and the potential impact of assessing genomic data for an individual at any stage of the disease.