Pancreatic Cancer: Changing Epidemiology and New Approaches to Risk Assessment, Early Detection, and Prevention.

Pancreatic cancer usually results in poor survival with limited options for treatment, as most affected individuals present with advanced disease. Early detection of preinvasive pancreatic neoplasia and identifying molecular therapeutic targets provide opportunities for extending survival. Although screening for pancreatic cancer is currently not recommended for the general population, emerging evidence indicates that pancreatic surveillance can improve outcomes for individuals in certain high-risk groups. Changes in the epidemiology of pancreatic cancer, experience from pancreatic surveillance, and discovery of novel biomarkers provide a roadmap for new strategies for pancreatic cancer risk assessment, early detection, and prevention.

Risk Factors for Serrated Polyps: Results From a Large, Multicenter Colonoscopy-Based Study.

INTRODUCTION: Risk factors for serrated polyps (SPs) are not well understood. METHODS: Multivariable analyses of data from a multicenter colonoscopy-based study estimated odds ratios for having either a sessile serrated lesion or traditional serrated adenoma according to participant characteristics. RESULTS: Six thousand seventy-eighty participants were included in the analyses (565 with either a sessile serrated lesion or traditional serrated adenoma). White race was associated with a higher risk of SPs compared with Black race (adjusted odds ratio 4.64, 95% confidence interval 1.89-11.41). Obesity and current smoking were also associated with a higher risk of SPs. DISCUSSION: White race, smoking, and obesity are risk factors for precancerous SPs.

The Pancreatic Cancer Early Detection (PRECEDE) Study is a Global Effort to Drive Early Detection: Baseline Imaging Findings in High-Risk Individuals.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PC) is a highly lethal malignancy with a survival rate of only 12%. Surveillance is recommended for high-risk individuals (HRIs), but it is not widely adopted. To address this unmet clinical need and drive early diagnosis research, we established the Pancreatic Cancer Early Detection (PRECEDE) Consortium. METHODS: PRECEDE is a multi-institutional international collaboration that has undertaken an observational prospective cohort study. Individuals (aged 18-90 years) are enrolled into 1 of 7 cohorts based on family history and pathogenic germline variant (PGV) status. From April 1, 2020, to November 21, 2022, a total of 3,402 participants were enrolled in 1 of 7 study cohorts, with 1,759 (51.7%) meeting criteria for the highest-risk cohort (Cohort 1). Cohort 1 HRIs underwent germline testing and pancreas imaging by MRI/MR-cholangiopancreatography or endoscopic ultrasound. RESULTS: A total of 1,400 participants in Cohort 1 (79.6%) had completed baseline imaging and were subclassified into 3 groups based on familial PC (FPC; n=670), a PGV and FPC (PGV+/FPC+; n=115), and a PGV with a pedigree that does not meet FPC criteria (PGV+/FPC-; n=615). One HRI was diagnosed with stage IIB PC on study entry, and 35.1% of HRIs harbored pancreatic cysts. Increasing age (odds ratio, 1.05; P<.001) and FPC group assignment (odds ratio, 1.57; P<.001; relative to PGV+/FPC-) were independent predictors of harboring a pancreatic cyst. CONCLUSIONS: PRECEDE provides infrastructure support to increase access to clinical surveillance for HRIs worldwide, while aiming to drive early PC detection advancements through longitudinal standardized clinical data, imaging, and biospecimen captures. Increased cyst prevalence in HRIs with FPC suggests that FPC may infer distinct biological processes. To enable the development of PC surveillance approaches better tailored to risk category, we recommend adoption of subclassification of HRIs into FPC, PGV+/FPC+, and PGV+/FPC- risk groups by surveillance protocols.

Impact of barriers and motivators on intention and confidence to undergo hereditary cancer genetic testing.

Genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes can provide lifesaving information allowing for individualized cancer screening, prevention, and treatment. However, the determinants, both barriers and motivators, of genetic testing intention are not well described. A survey of barriers and motivators to genetic testing was emailed to adult patients eligible for genetic testing based on cancer diagnosis who previously have not had genetic testing (n = 201). Associations between barriers/motivators with testing intention and confidence were examined first by correlation followed by multivariable linear regression model holding constant potential covariates. Seven barrier items from two domains (logistics and genetic testing knowledge) were found to significantly negatively correlate with genetic testing intention. Unexpectedly, three barrier items had significant positive correlation with genetic testing intention; these were related to family worry (passing a condition on to future generations) and testing knowledge (needing more information on the genetic testing process and what it has to offer). Ten barrier items had significant negative correlation with confidence to get a genetic test and encompassed four domains: stigma, insurance/genetic discrimination, knowledge, and cost. All motivator items were associated with intention to get a genetic test, while none were associated with confidence. Multivariable analysis yielded six total barriers (five from the knowledge domain, one from cost domain) and two motivators (relieved to know and treatment impact) that were significantly associated with genetic testing intention or confidence when controlling for demographic characteristics. These findings indicate the need for tailored interventions to amplify motivating factors and counter-message barriers to enhance patient motivation and confidence to undergo testing.

Eflornithine plus Sulindac for Prevention of Progression in Familial Adenomatous Polyposis.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of combination therapy with eflornithine and sulindac, as compared with either drug alone, in delaying disease progression in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis are unknown. METHODS: We evaluated the efficacy and safety of the combination of eflornithine and sulindac, as compared with either drug alone, in adults with familial adenomatous polyposis. The patients were stratified on the basis of anatomical site with the highest polyp burden and surgical status; the strata were precolectomy (shortest projected time to disease progression), rectal or ileal pouch polyposis after colectomy (longest projected time), and duodenal polyposis (intermediate projected time). The patients were then randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive 750 mg of eflornithine, 150 mg of sulindac, or both once daily for up to 48 months. The primary end point, assessed in a time-to-event analysis, was disease progression, defined as a composite of major surgery, endoscopic excision of advanced adenomas, diagnosis of high-grade dysplasia in the rectum or pouch, or progression of duodenal disease. RESULTS: A total of 171 patients underwent randomization. Disease progression occurred in 18 of 56 patients (32%) in the eflornithine-sulindac group, 22 of 58 (38%) in the sulindac group, and 23 of 57 (40%) in the eflornithine group, with a hazard ratio of 0.71 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39 to 1.32) for eflornithine-sulindac as compared with sulindac (P = 0.29) and 0.66 (95% CI, 0.36 to 1.24) for eflornithine-sulindac as compared with eflornithine. Among 37 precolectomy patients, the corresponding values in the treatment groups were 2 of 12 patients (17%), 6 of 13 (46%), and 5 of 12 (42%) (hazard ratios, 0.30 [95% CI, 0.07 to 1.32] and 0.20 [95% CI, 0.03 to 1.32]); among 34 patients with rectal or ileal pouch polyposis, the values were 4 of 11 patients (36%), 2 of 11 (18%), and 5 of 12 (42%) (hazard ratios, 2.03 [95% CI, 0.43 to 9.62] and 0.84 [95% CI, 0.24 to 2.90]); and among 100 patients with duodenal polyposis, the values were 12 of 33 patients (36%), 14 of 34 (41%), and 13 of 33 (39%) (hazard ratios, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.34 to 1.52] and 0.76 [95% CI, 0.35 to 1.64]). Adverse and serious adverse events were similar across the treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial involving patients with familial adenomatous polyposis, the incidence of disease progression was not significantly lower with the combination of eflornithine and sulindac than with either drug alone. (Funded by Cancer Prevention Pharmaceuticals; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01483144; EudraCT number, 2012-000427-41.).

Timeline of Development of Pancreatic Cancer and Implications for Successful Early Detection in High-Risk Individuals.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: To successfully implement imaging-based pancreatic cancer (PC) surveillance, understanding the timeline and morphologic features of neoplastic progression is key. We aimed to investigate the progression to neoplasia from serial prediagnostic pancreatic imaging tests in high-risk individuals and identify factors associated with successful early detection. METHODS: We retrospectively examined the development of pancreatic abnormalities in high-risk individuals who were diagnosed with PC or underwent pancreatic surgery, or both, in 16 international surveillance programs. RESULTS: Of 2552 high-risk individuals under surveillance, 28 (1%) developed neoplastic progression to PC or high-grade dysplasia during a median follow-up of 29 months after baseline (interquartile range [IQR], 40 months). Of these, 13 of 28 (46%) presented with a new lesion (median size, 15 mm; range 7-57 mm), a median of 11 months (IQR, 8; range 3-17 months) after a prior examination, by which time 10 of 13 (77%) had progressed beyond the pancreas. The remaining 15 of 28 (54%) had neoplastic progression in a previously detected lesion (12 originally cystic, 2 indeterminate, 1 solid), and 11 (73%) had PC progressed beyond the pancreas. The 12 patients with cysts had been monitored for 21 months (IQR, 15 months) and had a median growth of 5 mm/y (IQR, 8 mm/y). Successful early detection (as high-grade dysplasia or PC confined to the pancreas) was associated with resection of cystic lesions (vs solid or indeterminate lesions (odds ratio, 5.388; 95% confidence interval, 1.525-19.029) and small lesions (odds ratio, 0.890/mm; 95% confidence interval 0.812-0.976/mm). CONCLUSIONS: In nearly half of high-risk individuals developing high-grade dysplasia or PC, no prior lesions are detected by imaging, yet they present at an advanced stage. Progression can occur before the next scheduled annual examination. More sensitive diagnostic tools or a different management strategy for rapidly growing cysts are needed.

Integrative clinical genomics of metastatic cancer.

Metastasis is the primary cause of cancer-related deaths. Although The Cancer Genome Atlas has sequenced primary tumour types obtained from surgical resections, much less comprehensive molecular analysis is available from clinically acquired metastatic cancers. Here we perform whole-exome and -transcriptome sequencing of 500 adult patients with metastatic solid tumours of diverse lineage and biopsy site. The most prevalent genes somatically altered in metastatic cancer included TP53, CDKN2A, PTEN, PIK3CA, and RB1. Putative pathogenic germline variants were present in 12.2% of cases of which 75% were related to defects in DNA repair. RNA sequencing complemented DNA sequencing to identify gene fusions, pathway activation, and immune profiling. Our results show that integrative sequence analysis provides a clinically relevant, multi-dimensional view of the complex molecular landscape and microenvironment of metastatic cancers.

Implementation of a dedicated cascade testing clinic for patients at risk for hereditary cancer syndromes.

Cascade testing, the site-specific genetic testing of relatives within families with an inherited condition, is underutilized. Long wait times for appointments in specialty genetics clinics are a known barrier to genetic testing access. In our cancer genetics, New Patient Clinic (NPC), the long wait time for an appointment (on average 5 months for routine referrals), was identified by both providers and patients as a barrier to uptake of cascade testing. Timely testing of at-risk relatives is essential to maximize the benefits of cascade testing and reduce cancer morbidity and mortality. Our objective was to improve access via implementation of a different clinical model that designated appointments for patients seeking cascade testing. A secondary goal was to improve use of genetic counselor time. We implemented a dedicated Cascade Testing Clinic (CTC) with an expedited triaging and unique scheduling model to decrease patient wait time to appointment and optimize clinician time. We report on the process and outcomes here. Between October 2016 and February 2020, the average wait time between referral date and first scheduled appointment date was 46 days for the CTC compared to 144 days for the NPC (p < 0.0001). No-show/cancelation/rescheduling rate was 11.7% in the CTC compared to 29.7% in the NPC (p < 0.0001). Genetic counselors saw approximately twice as many patients per half-day clinic in the CTC compared to the NPC (p < 0.00001). Modifications to clinic staffing and appointment times were made based on provider feedback. Implementation of a dedicated clinic specifically for patients seeking cascade testing significantly shortened wait times for this population, reduced patient drop-off, and improved clinician efficiency. The relatively straightforward indications and generally uncomplicated medical histories made this an ideal population for expedited appointments.

Current Approaches to Germline Cancer Genetic Testing.

The prevalence of genetic predisposition to cancer is greater than initially appreciated, yet most affected individuals remain undiagnosed. Deleterious germline variants in cancer predisposition genes are implicated in 1 in 10 cases of advanced cancer. Next-generation sequencing technologies have made germline and tumor DNA sequencing more accessible and less expensive. Expanded access to clinical genetic testing will improve identification of individuals with genetic predisposition to cancer and provide opportunities to effectively reduce morbidity through precision cancer therapies and surveillance. Cross-disciplinary clinical education in genomic medicine is needed to translate advances in genomic medicine into improved health outcomes.

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Germline Genetic Testing of Patients With Young-Onset Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Up to 20% of younger patients (age <50 years) diagnosed with colorectal cancer (CRC) have germline mutations in cancer susceptibility genes. Germline genetic testing may guide clinical management and facilitate earlier intervention in affected relatives. Few studies have characterized differences in genetic testing by race/ethnicity. METHODS: We identified young adults (age 18-49 years) diagnosed with CRC between 2009 and 2017 in 2 health systems in Dallas, TX. We evaluated referral to genetic counseling, attendance at genetic counseling appointments, and receipt of germline genetic testing by race/ethnicity. RESULTS: Of 385 patients with young-onset CRC (median age at diagnosis 44.4 years), 176 (45.7%) were Hispanic, 98 (25.4%) non-Hispanic Black, and 111 (28.8%) non-Hispanic White. Most patients (76.9%) received immunohistochemistry (IHC) for mismatch repair proteins, and there was no difference in receipt of IHC by race/ethnicity. However, a lower proportion of Black patients were referred to genetic counseling (50.0% vs White patients 54.1% vs Hispanic patients 65.9%; P = .02) and attended genetic counseling appointments (61.2% vs 81.7% White patients vs 86.2% Hispanic patients; P < .01). Of 141 patients receiving genetic testing, 38 (27.0%) had a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant in a cancer susceptibility gene. An additional 33 patients (23.4%) had variants of uncertain significance, of which 84.8% occurred in racial/ethnic minorities. CONCLUSIONS: In a diverse population of patients diagnosed with young-onset CRC, we observed racial/ethnic differences in referral to and receipt of germline genetic testing. Our findings underscore the importance of universal genetic testing to address racial/ethnic disparities in young-onset CRC.

Satisfaction With Clinician-Led Germline Genetic Counseling in Patients With Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Indications for germline testing in prostate cancer patients have expanded substantially over the past decade. With a near-universal shortage of genetic counselors and increasing demand, increased access to genetic counseling is crucial. We sought to prospectively implement and assess a clinician-led approach to genetic counseling and testing. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with metastatic or localized prostate cancer meeting National Comprehensive Cancer Network® criteria for consideration of genetic testing were offered pre-test genetic counseling by their urologist or medical oncologist as part of their routine clinical care and concurrently approached for enrollment in the Germline Genetics in Prostate Cancer Study. Consented patients filled out a post-counseling survey using validated instruments to assess the quality of counseling. For patients who elected to undergo genetic testing, an additional validated questionnaire was completed following disclosure of results. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients undergoing testing, with a target >60% of patients. The secondary outcome was overall satisfaction with counseling, with a target >85% of patients. RESULTS: A total of 275 patients enrolled, and 203 patients elected to undergo genetic testing. Post-counseling surveys were obtained from 265 patients, and post-genetic testing surveys were obtained from 132 patients. Patient satisfaction was high, with 98% of patients reporting being satisfied with the overall quality of pre-test counseling, and 74% of patients elected to undergo genetic testing. CONCLUSIONS: These results support the effectiveness of clinician-led genetic counseling in prostate cancer. With clinician training, this approach can be utilized to expand access to appropriate germline genetic testing.

Combination of Sulindac and Eflornithine Delays the Need for Lower Gastrointestinal Surgery in Patients With Familial Adenomatous Polyposis: Post Hoc Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Colectomy and proctocolectomy are the initial standard of care for patients with familial adenomatous polyposis. Pharmacotherapy to prevent the progression of polyposis and surgeries in the lower GI tract would be beneficial to patients with this disease. OBJECTIVE: This analysis aimed to evaluate the impact of eflornithine-sulindac combination versus monotherapy in delaying time to disease progression in the lower GI tract of patients with familial adenomatous polyposis. DESIGN: This is a post hoc analysis of a randomized phase 3 trial. SETTING: This study was conducted in 21 hospitals in 7 countries treating patients with familial adenomatous polyposis. PATIENTS: Adults with familial adenomatous polyposis were randomly assigned 1:1:1 into 3 arms. INTERVENTIONS: Patients received either eflornithine (750 mg), sulindac (150 mg), or both once daily for up to 48 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Efficacy was evaluated as the time from randomization to predefined primary disease progression end points. RESULTS: A total of 158 patients were included in the study. Disease progression was observed in 2 of 54 (3.7%), 9 of 53 (17.0%), and 10 of 51 (19.6%) patients with at least partial lower GI tract in the combination, sulindac, and eflornithine arms, corresponding to risk reductions of 80% (p = 0.02) and 83% (p = 0.01) between combination and sulindac or eflornithine. When endoscopic excision of adenomas ≥10 mm in size was censored, the need for major surgery was observed in 0 of 54, 7 of 53 (13.2%), and 8 of 51 (15.7%) patients in the combination, sulindac, and eflornithine arms, corresponding to risk reductions approaching 100% between combination and sulindac (p = 0.005) or combination and eflornithine (p = 0.003). LIMITATIONS: This was a post hoc analysis, the sample size was small, and there were fewer than expected events. CONCLUSIONS: Eflornithine-sulindac combination therapy was superior to either drug alone in delaying or preventing the need for lower GI tract surgery in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B658. REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01483144; EU Clinical Trials Register, EudraCT 2012-000427-41. LA COMBINACIN DE SULINDAC Y EFLORNITINA RETRASA LA NECESIDAD DE CIRUGA DEL TUBO DIGESTIVO BAJO EN PACIENTES CON PAF ANLISIS POSTHOC DE UN ENSAYO CLNICO ALEATORIZADO: ANTECEDENTES:La colectomía y la proctocolectomía son el estándar inicial de atención para los pacientes con poliposis adenomatosa familiar. La farmacoterapia para prevenir la progresión de la poliposis y las cirugías en el tracto gastrointestinal inferior sería beneficiosa para los pacientes con esta enfermedad.OBJETIVO:Este análisis tuvo como objetivo evaluar el impacto de la combinación de eflornitina-sulindac versus la monoterapia en el retraso del tiempo hasta la progresión de la enfermedad en el tracto gastrointestinal inferior de pacientes con poliposis adenomatosa familiar.DISEÑO:Este es un análisis posthoc de un ensayo de fase 3 aleatorizado.ENTORNO CLINICO:Veintiún hospitales en 7 países que tratan a pacientes con poliposis adenomatosa familiar.PACIENTES:Adultos con poliposis adenomatosa familiar fueron aleatorizados 1: 1: 1 en 3 brazos.INTERVENCIONES:Los pacientes recibieron eflornitina (750 mg), sulindac (150 mg) o ambos una vez al día durante un máximo de 48 meses.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE VALORACION:La eficacia se evaluó como el tiempo desde la aleatorización hasta los criterios de valoración primarios predefinidos de progresión de la enfermedad.RESULTADOS:Los resultados se informan para la población de estudio excluyendo a los pacientes que se habían sometido a ileostomías permanentes (n = 158). Se observó progresión de la enfermedad en 2/54 (3,7%), 9/53 (17,0%) y 10/51 (19,6%) pacientes con al menos tracto gastrointestinal inferior parcial en los brazos de combinación, sulindac y eflornitina, respectivamente, correspondientes al riesgo de reducciones del 80% (p = 0,02) y del 83% (p = 0,01) entre la combinación y el sulindaco o la eflornitina, respectivamente. Cuando se censuró la escisión endoscópica de adenomas ≥10 mm de tamaño, se observó la necesidad de cirugía mayor en 0/54, 7/53 (13,2%) y 8/51 (15,7%) pacientes en la combinación, sulindac y eflornitina, respectivamente, correspondientes a reducciones de riesgo cercanas al 100% entre combinación y sulindac (p = 0,005) o combinación y eflornitina (p = 0,003).LIMITACIONES:Este fue un análisis posthoc, el tamaño de la muestra fue pequeño y hubo menos eventos de los esperados.CONCLUSIONES:La terapia de combinación de eflornitina-sulindac fue superior a cualquier fármaco solo para retrasar o prevenir la necesidad de cirugía del tracto gastrointestinal inferior en pacientes con poliposis adenomatosa familiar. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B658.

Risk assessment and genetic counseling for Lynch syndrome - Practice resource of the National Society of Genetic Counselors and the Collaborative Group of the Americas on Inherited Gastrointestinal Cancer.

Identifying individuals who have Lynch syndrome involves a complex diagnostic workup that includes taking a detailed family history and a combination of various tests such as immunohistochemistry and/or molecular which may be germline and/or somatic. The National Society of Genetic Counselors and the Collaborative Group of the Americas on Inherited Gastrointestinal Cancer have come together to publish this practice resource for the evaluation of Lynch syndrome. The purpose of this practice resource was to provide guidance and a testing algorithm for Lynch syndrome as well as recommendations on when to offer testing. This practice resource does not replace a consultation with a genetics professional. This practice resource includes explanations in support of this and a summary of background data. While this practice resource is not intended to serve as a review of Lynch syndrome, it includes a discussion of background information and cites a number of key publications which should be reviewed for a more in-depth understanding. This practice resource is intended for genetic counselors, geneticists, gastroenterologists, surgeons, medical oncologists, obstetricians and gynecologists, nurses, and other healthcare providers who evaluate patients for Lynch syndrome.

Naproxen chemoprevention promotes immune activation in Lynch syndrome colorectal mucosa.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with Lynch syndrome (LS) are at markedly increased risk for colorectal cancer. It is being increasingly recognised that the immune system plays an essential role in LS tumour development, thus making an ideal target for cancer prevention. Our objective was to evaluate the safety, assess the activity and discover novel molecular pathways involved in the activity of naproxen as primary and secondary chemoprevention in patients with LS. DESIGN: We conducted a Phase Ib, placebo-controlled, randomised clinical trial of two dose levels of naproxen sodium (440 and 220 mg) administered daily for 6 months to 80 participants with LS, and a co-clinical trial using a genetically engineered mouse model of LS and patient-derived organoids (PDOs). RESULTS: Overall, the total number of adverse events was not different across treatment arms with excellent tolerance of the intervention. The level of prostaglandin E2 in the colorectal mucosa was significantly decreased after treatment with naproxen when compared with placebo. Naproxen activated different resident immune cell types without any increase in lymphoid cellularity, and changed the expression patterns of the intestinal crypt towards epithelial differentiation and stem cell regulation. Naproxen demonstrated robust chemopreventive activity in a mouse co-clinical trial and gene expression profiles induced by naproxen in humans showed perfect discrimination of mice specimens with LS and PDOs treated with naproxen and control. CONCLUSIONS: Naproxen is a promising strategy for immune interception in LS. We have discovered naproxen-induced gene expression profiles for their potential use as predictive biomarkers of drug activity. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: gov Identifier: NCT02052908.

Epidemiology and Mechanisms of the Increasing Incidence of Colon and Rectal Cancers in Young Adults.

In contrast to the decreasing incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) in older populations, the incidence has nearly doubled in younger adults since the early 1990s. Approximately 1 in 10 new diagnoses of CRC are now made in individuals 50 years or younger. Patients' risk of CRC has been calculated largely by age and family history, yet 3 of 4 patients with early-onset CRC have no family history of the disease. Rapidly increasing incidence rates in younger people could result from generational differences in diet, environmental exposures, and lifestyle factors. We review epidemiologic trends in CRC, data on genetic and nongenetic risk factors, and new approaches for determining CRC risk. These may identify individuals likely to benefit from early screening and specialized surveillance.

Dye-Based Chromoendoscopy in Patients With Lynch Syndrome: An Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.

INTRODUCTION: The additional diagnostic value of dye-based chromoendosocpy (CE) for surveillance of patients with Lynch syndrome is subject of debate. METHODS: To clarify this debate, we performed an individual patient data meta-analysis of randomized studies that compared CE with WLE for the detection of adenomas in patients with Lynch syndrome. RESULTS: Three randomized studies comprising 533 patients were included. The adenoma detection rate was 74/265 (28%) in patients randomized to WLE compared with 83/266 (31%) in patients randomized to CE (odds ratio 1.17; 95% confidence interval 0.81-1.70). DISCUSSION: Based on low-quality evidence, CE showed no apparent increase in adenoma detection compared to WLE during surveillance of patients with Lynch syndrome.

COVID-19 related pancreatic cancer surveillance disruptions amongst high-risk individuals.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 pandemic-related disruptions to EUS-based pancreatic cancer surveillance in high-risk individuals remain uncertain. METHODS: Analysis of enrolled participants in the CAPS5 Study, a prospective multicenter study of pancreatic cancer surveillance in high-risk individuals. RESULTS: Amongst 693 enrolled high-risk individuals under active surveillance, 108 (16%) had an EUS scheduled during the COVID-19 pandemic-related shutdown (median length of 78 days) in the spring of 2020, with 97% of these procedures being canceled. Of these canceled surveillance EUSs, 83% were rescheduled in a median of 4.1 months, however 17% were not rescheduled after 6 months follow-up. Prior history of cancer was associated with increased likelihood of rescheduling. To date no pancreatic cancer has been diagnosed among those whose surveillance was delayed. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 delayed pancreatic cancer surveillance with no adverse outcomes in efficiently rescheduled individuals. However, 1 in 6 high-risk individuals had not rescheduled surveillance, indicating the need for vigilance to ensure timely surveillance rescheduling.

Colon Cancer, Version 2.2021, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

This selection from the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Colon Cancer focuses on systemic therapy options for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), because important updates have recently been made to this section. These updates include recommendations for first-line use of checkpoint inhibitors for mCRC, that is deficient mismatch repair/microsatellite instability-high, recommendations related to the use of biosimilars, and expanded recommendations for biomarker testing. The systemic therapy recommendations now include targeted therapy options for patients with mCRC that is HER2-amplified, or BRAF V600E mutation-positive. Treatment and management of nonmetastatic or resectable/ablatable metastatic disease are discussed in the complete version of the NCCN Guidelines for Colon Cancer available at NCCN.org. Additional topics covered in the complete version include risk assessment, staging, pathology, posttreatment surveillance, and survivorship.

Outcomes of Endoscopic Surveillance in Individuals With Genetic Predisposition to Hereditary Diffuse Gastric Cancer.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Pathogenic germline variants in CDH1 are associated with risk for diffuse gastric cancer (DGC) and lobular breast cancer. The reported high incidence of DGC and limited sensitivity of endoscopy in detection have prompted recommendation for total prophylactic gastrectomy for carriers of pathogenic or likely pathogenic (PLP) germline variants of CDH1. Multigene panel tests have identified increasing numbers of carriers of PLP variants in CDH1 who lack a family history of DGC. We evaluated outcomes of endoscopic surveillance for carriers of PLP variants of CDH1 with and without family history of DGC. METHODS: Individuals from 13 families with germline PLP variants of CDH1 were evaluated at the Michigan Medicine Cancer Genetics Clinic from January 1998 through May 2018. Outcomes of esophagogastroduodenoscopy examinations, histopathology analyses, and surgery were compared between individuals with and without a family history of DGC. RESULTS: We identified 20 carriers of germline CDH1 PLP variants; they underwent endoscopic examinations and/or gastrectomy. None had abnormal findings visible during endoscopy. Signet ring cell carcinoma (SRCC) was detected in 12 of 20 subjects. All but 1 of the carcinomas were tiny and confined to the lamina propria, and 1 was transmural. Seven of 12 subjects who had SRCC reported no diagnoses of DGC in first-degree relatives and did not meet established criteria for CDH1 analysis based on a 3-generation family pedigree. CONCLUSIONS: More than half of individuals with germlines variants of CDH1 that are PLP had histopathologic evidence for DGC on endoscopy and/or gastrectomy. Family history of DGC and endoscopic findings therefore do not appear to be reliable determinants of risk of SRCC in individuals with genetic predisposition to DGC.

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Rectal Cancer, Version 6.2020.

The NCCN Guidelines for Rectal Cancer provide recommendations for the diagnosis, evaluation, treatment, and follow-up of patients with rectal cancer. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel discussion behind recent important updates to the guidelines. These updates include clarifying the definition of rectum and differentiating the rectum from the sigmoid colon; the total neoadjuvant therapy approach for localized rectal cancer; and biomarker-targeted therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer, with a focus on new treatment options for patients with BRAF V600E- or HER2 amplification-positive disease.