Neuroblastoma Predisposition and Surveillance-An Update from the 2023 AACR Childhood Cancer Predisposition Workshop.

Genetic predisposition to neuroblastoma (NB) is relatively rare. Only 1% to 2% of patients have a family history of NB, 3% to 4% of cases present with bilateral or multifocal primary tumors, and occasional patients have syndromes that are associated with increased NB risk. Previously, a germline pathogenic variant (GPV) in PHOX2B was associated with Hirschsprung disease and congenital central hypoventilation syndrome. Recently, certain GPVs were shown to be responsible for congenital central hypoventilation syndrome and NB predisposition. Also, several groups determined that activating GPVs in ALK accounted for a substantial number of familial NB. Finally, there are additional genes and cancer predisposition syndromes in which NB occurs with greater frequency or that have been associated with NB based on genome-wide association studies. We review the evidence for all these genes and whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant surveillance. We review recommended surveillance for hereditary patients with NB, including minor updates to surveillance recommendations that were published previously in 2017.

Genomic sequencing research in pediatric cancer care: Decision-making, attitudes, and perceived utility among adolescents and young adults and their parents.

PURPOSE: Professional guidelines recommend engaging adolescents and young adults (AYAs) in medical decision-making (DM), including whether to undergo genomic sequencing (GS). We explored DM around GS and attitudes after return of GS results among a diverse group of AYAs with cancer and their parents. METHODS: We surveyed AYAs with cancer (n=75) and their parents (n=52) six months after receiving GS results through the Texas KidsCanSeq Study. We analyzed AYAs' DM role in GS research enrollment and their satisfaction with that role. We compared AYAs' and parents' self-reported understanding of, attitudes toward, and perceived utility of the AYAs' GS results. RESULTS: Most AYAs reported equally sharing DM with their parents (55%) or leading DM (36%) about GS research. Compared to their cancer care DM role, 56% of AYAs reported the same level of involvement in GS research DM while 32% were more involved and 13% were less involved (p=0.011). AYAs were satisfied (99%) with their DM role regarding GS study participation. AYAs and parents had similar self-reported understanding of, attitudes toward, and perceived utility of the GS results. CONCLUSION: Our results support engaging AYAs in DM about GS research and provide insights into AYAs' DM preferences and positive attitudes toward GS.

Update on Cancer Predisposition Syndromes and Surveillance Guidelines for Childhood Brain Tumors.

Tumors of the central nervous system (CNS) comprise the second most common group of neoplasms in childhood. The incidence of germline predisposition among children with brain tumors continues to grow as our knowledge on disease etiology increases. Some children with brain tumors may present with nonmalignant phenotypic features of specific syndromes (e.g., nevoid basal cell carcinoma syndrome, neurofibromatosis type 1 and type 2, DICER1 syndrome, and constitutional mismatch-repair deficiency), while others may present with a strong family history of cancer (e.g., Li-Fraumeni syndrome) or with a rare tumor commonly found in the context of germline predisposition (e.g., rhabdoid tumor predisposition syndrome). Approximately 50% of patients with a brain tumor may be the first in a family identified to have a predisposition. The past decade has witnessed a rapid expansion in our molecular understanding of CNS tumors. A significant proportion of CNS tumors are now well characterized and known to harbor specific genetic changes that can be found in the germline. Additional novel predisposition syndromes are also being described. Identification of these germline syndromes in individual patients has not only enabled cascade testing of family members and early tumor surveillance but also increasingly affected cancer management in those patients. Therefore, the AACR Cancer Predisposition Working Group chose to highlight these advances in CNS tumor predisposition and summarize and/or generate surveillance recommendations for established and more recently emerging pediatric brain tumor predisposition syndromes.

FOCAD Indel in a Family With Juvenile Polyposis Syndrome.

Juvenile polyposis syndrome (JPS) is a childhood polyposis syndrome with up to a 50% lifetime risk of gastrointestinal cancer. Germline pathogenic variants in BMPR1A and SMAD4 are responsible for around 40% of cases of JPS, but for the majority of individuals, the underlying genetic cause is unknown. We identified a family for which polyposis spanned four generations, and the proband had a clinical diagnosis of JPS. Next-generation sequencing was conducted, followed by Sanger sequencing confirmation. We identified an internal deletion of the FOCAD gene in all family members tested that altered the reading frame and is predicted to be pathogenic. We conclude that inactivation of the FOCAD gene is likely to cause JPS in this family.

Phenotypic Differences in Juvenile Polyposis Syndrome With or Without a Disease-causing SMAD4/BMPR1A Variant.

Juvenile polyposis syndrome (JPS) is a clinically diagnosed hamartomatous polyposis syndrome that increases the risk of gastrointestinal cancer. Approximately 40%-50% of JPS is caused by a germline disease-causing variant (DCV) in the SMAD4 or BMPR1A genes. The aim of this study was to characterize the phenotype of DCV-negative JPS and compare it with DCV-positive JPS. Herein, we analyzed a cohort of 145 individuals with JPS from nine institutions, including both pediatric and adult centers. Data analyzed included age at diagnosis, family history, cancer history, need for colectomy/gastrectomy, and polyp number and location. Compared with DCV-positive JPS, DCV-negative JPS was associated with younger age at diagnosis (P < 0.001), lower likelihood of having a family history of JPS (P < 0.001), and a lower risk of colectomy (P = 0.032). None of the DCV-negative individuals had gastric or duodenal polyps, and polyp burden decreased after the first decade compared with DCV-positive JPS. Subgroup analysis between SMAD4 and BMPR1A carriers showed that SMAD4 carriers were more likely to have a family history of JPS and required gastrectomy. Taken together, these data provide the largest phenotypic characterization of individuals with DCV-negative JPS to date, showing that this group has distinct differences compared with JPS due to a SMAD4 or BMPR1A variant. Better understanding of phenotype and cancer risk associated with JPS both with and without a DCV may ultimately allow for individualized management of polyposis and cancer risk.Prevention Relevance: Juvenile Polyposis Syndrome (JPS) is a gastrointestinal cancer predisposition syndrome requiring lifelong surveillance, however there is limited data comparing individuals with and without a germline disease-causing variant in SMAD4 or BMPR1A Herein we show that individuals with JPS without an underlying disease-causing variant have distinct phenotypic differences including lack of upper gastrointestinal polyps and lower rates of a family history of JPS, suggesting that a different approach to management may be appropriate in this population.

Genetic Counselor Recommendations for Cancer Predisposition Evaluation and Surveillance in the Pediatric Oncology Patient.

As the understanding of the genetic etiology of childhood cancers increases, the need for the involvement of experts familiar with the provision of genetic counseling for this population is paramount. In October 2016, the American Association for Cancer Research organized the AACR Childhood Cancer Predisposition Workshop in which international experts in pediatric cancer predisposition met to establish surveillance guidelines for children with cancer predisposition. Identifying for whom, when, why, and how these cancer predisposition surveillance guidelines should be implemented is essential. Genetic counselors invited to this workshop provide a genetic counseling framework for oncology professionals in this article. Points of entry and recommendations regarding the provision and timing of the initial and subsequent genetic counseling sessions are addressed. The genetic counseling and testing processes are reviewed, and the psychologic impact related to surveillance is explored. Pediatric cancer genetics will continue to grow and evolve as a field, and genetic counseling services will be vital to ensure appropriate identification and management of at-risk children moving forward. Clin Cancer Res; 23(13); e91-e97. ©2017 AACRSee all articles in the online-only CCR Pediatric Oncology Series.

Retinoblastoma and Neuroblastoma Predisposition and Surveillance.

Retinoblastoma (RB) is the most common intraocular malignancy in childhood. Approximately 40% of retinoblastomas are hereditary and due to germline mutations in the RB1 gene. Children with hereditary RB are also at risk for developing a midline intracranial tumor, most commonly pineoblastoma. We recommend intensive ocular screening for patients with germline RB1 mutations for retinoblastoma as well as neuroimaging for pineoblastoma surveillance. There is an approximately 20% risk of developing second primary cancers among individuals with hereditary RB, higher among those who received radiotherapy for their primary RB tumors. However, there is not yet a clear consensus on what, if any, screening protocol would be most appropriate and effective. Neuroblastoma (NB), an embryonal tumor of the sympathetic nervous system, accounts for 15% of pediatric cancer deaths. Prior studies suggest that about 2% of patients with NB have an underlying genetic predisposition that may have contributed to the development of NB. Germline mutations in ALK and PHOX2B account for most familial NB cases. However, other cancer predisposition syndromes, such as Li-Fraumeni syndrome, RASopathies, and others, may be associated with an increased risk for NB. No established protocols for NB surveillance currently exist. Here, we describe consensus recommendations on hereditary RB and NB from the AACR Childhood Cancer Predisposition Workshop. Clin Cancer Res; 23(13); e98-e106. ©2017 AACRSee all articles in the online-only CCR Pediatric Oncology Series.

Cancer Screening Recommendations and Clinical Management of Inherited Gastrointestinal Cancer Syndromes in Childhood.

Hereditary gastrointestinal cancer predisposition syndromes have been well characterized, but management strategies and surveillance remain a major challenge, especially in childhood. In October 2016, the American Association for Cancer Research organized the AACR Childhood Cancer Predisposition Workshop in which international experts in care of children with a hereditary risk of cancer met to define surveillance strategies and management of children with cancer predisposition syndromes. In this article, we review the current literature in polyposis syndromes that can be diagnosed in childhood and may be associated with an increased incidence of gastrointestinal neoplasms and other cancer types. These disorders include adenomatous polyposis syndromes (APC and MUTYH), juvenile polyposis coli (BMPR1A and SMAD4), Peutz-Jeghers Syndrome (STK11/LKB1), and PTEN hamartoma tumor syndrome (PHTS; PTEN), which can present with a more limited juvenile polyposis phenotype. Herein, the panel of experts provides recommendations for clinical diagnosis, approach to genetic testing, and focus on cancer surveillance recommendations when appropriate during the pediatric period. We also review current controversies on genetic evaluation of patients with hepatoblastoma and indications for surveillance for this tumor. Childhood cancer risks and surveillance associated with disorders involving the mismatch repair genes, including Lynch syndrome and constitutional mismatch repair deficiency (CMMRD), are discussed elsewhere in this series. Clin Cancer Res; 23(13); e107-e14. ©2017 AACRSee all articles in the online-only CCR Pediatric Oncology Series.

Recommendations for Surveillance for Children with Leukemia-Predisposing Conditions.

Leukemia, the most common childhood cancer, has long been recognized to occasionally run in families. The first clues about the genetic mechanisms underlying familial leukemia emerged in 1990 when Li-Fraumeni syndrome was linked to TP53 mutations. Since this discovery, many other genes associated with hereditary predisposition to leukemia have been identified. Although several of these disorders also predispose individuals to solid tumors, certain conditions exist in which individuals are specifically at increased risk to develop myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) and/or acute leukemia. The increasing identification of affected individuals and families has raised questions around the efficacy, timing, and optimal methods of surveillance. As part of the AACR Childhood Cancer Predisposition Workshop, an expert panel met to review the spectrum of leukemia-predisposing conditions, with the aim to develop consensus recommendations for surveillance for pediatric patients. The panel recognized that for several conditions, routine monitoring with complete blood counts and bone marrow evaluations is essential to identify disease evolution and enable early intervention with allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. However, for others, less intensive surveillance may be considered. Because few reports describing the efficacy of surveillance exist, the recommendations derived by this panel are based on opinion, and local experience and will need to be revised over time. The development of registries and clinical trials is urgently needed to enhance understanding of the natural history of the leukemia-predisposing conditions, such that these surveillance recommendations can be optimized to further enhance long-term outcomes. Clin Cancer Res; 23(11); e14-e22. ©2017 AACRSee all articles in the online-only CCR Pediatric Oncology Series.

"Not Tied Up Neatly with a Bow": Professionals' Challenging Cases in Informed Consent for Genomic Sequencing.

As the use of genomic technology has expanded in research and clinical settings, issues surrounding informed consent for genome and exome sequencing have surfaced. Despite the importance of informed consent, little is known about the specific challenges that professionals encounter when consenting patients or research participants for genomic sequencing. We interviewed 29 genetic counselors and research coordinators with considerable experience obtaining informed consent for genomic sequencing to understand their experiences and perspectives. As part of this interview, 24 interviewees discussed an informed consent case they found particularly memorable or challenging. We analyzed these case examples to determine the primary issue or challenge represented by each case. Challenges fell into two domains: participant understanding, and facilitating decisions about testing or research participation. Challenges related to participant understanding included varying levels of general and genomic literacy, difficulty managing participant expectations, and contextual factors that impeded participant understanding. Challenges related to facilitating decision-making included complicated family dynamics such as disagreement or coercion, situations in which it was unclear whether sequencing research would be a good use of participant time or resources, and situations in which the professional experienced disagreement or discomfort with participant decisions. The issues highlighted in these case examples are instructive in preparing genetics professionals to obtain informed consent for genomic sequencing.

Experiences with obtaining informed consent for genomic sequencing.

Despite the increased utilization of genome and exome sequencing, little is known about the actual content and process of informed consent for sequencing. We addressed this by interviewing 29 genetic counselors and research coordinators experienced in obtaining informed consent for sequencing in research and clinical settings. Interviews focused on the process and content of informed consent; patients/participants' common questions, concerns and misperceptions; and challenges to obtaining informed consent. Content analysis of transcribed interviews revealed that the main challenges to obtaining consent related to the broad scope and uncertainty of results, and patient/participants' unrealistic expectations about the likely number and utility of results. Interviewees modified their approach to sessions according to contextual issues surrounding the indication for testing, type of patient, and timing of testing. With experience, most interviewees structured sessions to place less emphasis on standard elements in the consent form and technological aspects of sequencing. They instead focused on addressing misperceptions and helping patients/participants develop realistic expectations about the types and implications of possible results, including secondary findings. These findings suggest that informed consent sessions should focus on key issues that may be misunderstood by patients/participants. Future research should address the extent to which various stakeholders agree on key elements of informed consent.