Moving the Needle Forward in Genomically-Guided Precision Radiation Treatment.

Radiation treatment (RT) is a mainstay treatment for many types of cancer. Recommendations for RT and the radiation plan are individualized to each patient, taking into consideration the patient's tumor pathology, staging, anatomy, and other clinical characteristics. Information on germline mutations and somatic tumor mutations is at present rarely used to guide specific clinical decisions in RT. Many genes, such as ATM, and BRCA1/2, have been identified in the laboratory to confer radiation sensitivity. However, our understanding of the clinical significance of mutations in these genes remains limited and, as individual mutations in such genes can be rare, their impact on tumor response and toxicity remains unclear. Current guidelines, including those from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), provide limited guidance on how genetic results should be integrated into RT recommendations. With an increasing understanding of the molecular underpinning of radiation response, genomically-guided RT can inform decisions surrounding RT dose, volume, concurrent therapies, and even omission to further improve oncologic outcomes and reduce risks of toxicities. Here, we review existing evidence from laboratory, pre-clinical, and clinical studies with regard to how genetic alterations may affect radiosensitivity. We also summarize recent data from clinical trials and explore potential future directions to utilize genetic data to support clinical decision-making in developing a pathway toward personalized RT.

Point/Counterpoint: Is It Time for Universal Germline Genetic Testing for All GI Cancers?

Use of germline genetic testing among patients with cancer is increasing because of (1) the availability of multigene panel tests that include multiple cancer susceptibility genes in a single test, (2) decreased costs of these tests and improvements in insurance coverage, and (3) US Food and Drug Administration-approval of genotype-directed therapies such as poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors for individuals with certain cancers and pathogenic germline variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 (with possible benefits with other genes in the homologous repair deficiency pathway). In addition, National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines have already endorsed germline genetic testing for all patients with certain cancer types (epithelial ovarian cancer, exocrine pancreatic cancer, and high-grade/metastatic prostate cancer), regardless of age or personal/family history of cancer. Herein, we debate the pros and cons of offering germline multigene panel testing to all patients diagnosed with any GI cancer. The authors agree that it may just be a matter of time before germline multigene panel testing is offered to all patients with cancer; however, this article will highlight some of the benefits, risks, and limitations of this approach so that research can help fill some of the gaps to ensure that genetic medicine continues to be implemented in ways that improve real-world patient care and outcomes.

Genetically predicted circulating concentrations of micronutrients and risk of colorectal cancer among individuals of European descent: a Mendelian randomization study.

BACKGROUND: The literature on associations of circulating concentrations of minerals and vitamins with risk of colorectal cancer is limited and inconsistent. Evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to support the efficacy of dietary modification or nutrient supplementation for colorectal cancer prevention is also limited. OBJECTIVES: To complement observational and RCT findings, we investigated associations of genetically predicted concentrations of 11 micronutrients (ß-carotene, calcium, copper, folate, iron, magnesium, phosphorus, selenium, vitamin B-6, vitamin B-12, and zinc) with colorectal cancer risk using Mendelian randomization (MR). METHODS: Two-sample MR was conducted using 58,221 individuals with colorectal cancer and 67,694 controls from the Genetics and Epidemiology of Colorectal Cancer Consortium, Colorectal Cancer Transdisciplinary Study, and Colon Cancer Family Registry. Inverse variance-weighted MR analyses were performed with sensitivity analyses to assess the impact of potential violations of MR assumptions. RESULTS: Nominally significant associations were noted for genetically predicted iron concentration and higher risk of colon cancer [ORs per SD (ORSD): 1.08; 95% CI: 1.00, 1.17; P value = 0.05] and similarly for proximal colon cancer, and for vitamin B-12 concentration and higher risk of colorectal cancer (ORSD: 1.12; 95% CI: 1.03, 1.21; P value = 0.01) and similarly for colon cancer. A nominally significant association was also noted for genetically predicted selenium concentration and lower risk of colon cancer (ORSD: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.96, 1.00; P value = 0.05) and similarly for distal colon cancer. These associations were robust to sensitivity analyses. Nominally significant inverse associations were observed for zinc and risk of colorectal and distal colon cancers, but sensitivity analyses could not be performed. None of these findings survived correction for multiple testing. Genetically predicted concentrations of ß-carotene, calcium, copper, folate, magnesium, phosphorus, and vitamin B-6 were not associated with disease risk. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest possible causal associations of circulating iron and vitamin B-12 (positively) and selenium (inversely) with risk of colon cancer.

Double somatic mismatch repair gene pathogenic variants as common as Lynch syndrome among endometrial cancer patients.

OBJECTIVE: Lynch syndrome is the most common cause of inherited endometrial cancer, attributable to germline pathogenic variants (PV) in mismatch repair (MMR) genes. Tumor microsatellite instability (MSI-high) and MMR IHC abnormalities are characteristics of Lynch syndrome. Double somatic MMR gene PV also cause MSI-high endometrial cancers. The aim of this study was to determine the relative frequency of Lynch syndrome and double somatic MMR PV. METHODS: 341 endometrial cancer patients enrolled in the Ohio Colorectal Cancer Prevention Initiative at The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center from 1/1/13-12/31/16. All tumors underwent immunohistochemical (IHC) staining for the four MMR proteins, MSI testing, and MLH1 methylation testing if the tumor was MMR-deficient (dMMR). Germline genetic testing for Lynch syndrome was undertaken for all cases with dMMR tumors lacking MLH1 methylation. Tumor sequencing followed if a germline MMR gene PV was not identified. RESULTS: Twenty-seven percent (91/341) of tumors were either MSI-high or had abnormal IHC indicating dMMR. As expected, most dMMR tumors had MLH1 methylation; (69, 75.8% of the dMMR cases; 20.2% of total). Among the 22 (6.5%) cases with dMMR not explained by methylation, 10 (2.9% of total) were found to have Lynch syndrome (6 MSH6, 3 MSH2, 1 PMS2). Double somatic MMR PV accounted for the remaining 12 dMMR cases (3.5% of total). CONCLUSIONS: Since double somatic MMR gene PV are as common as Lynch syndrome among endometrial cancer patients, paired tumor and germline testing for patients with non-methylated dMMR tumor may be the most efficient approach for LS screening.

A practice guideline from the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the National Society of Genetic Counselors: referral indications for cancer predisposition assessment.

DISCLAIMER: The practice guidelines of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) and the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) are developed by members of the ACMG and NSGC to assist medical geneticists, genetic counselors, and other health-care providers in making decisions about appropriate management of genetic concerns, including access to and/or delivery of services. Each practice guideline focuses on a clinical or practice-based issue and is the result of a review and analysis of current professional literature believed to be reliable. As such, information and recommendations within the ACMG and NSGC joint practice guidelines reflect the current scientific and clinical knowledge at the time of publication, are current only as of their publication date, and are subject to change without notice as advances emerge. In addition, variations in practice, which take into account the needs of the individual patient and the resources and limitations unique to the institution or type of practice, may warrant approaches, treatments, and/or procedures that differ from the recommendations outlined in this guideline. Therefore, these recommendations should not be construed as dictating an exclusive course of management, nor does the use of such recommendations guarantee a particular outcome. Genetic counseling practice guidelines are never intended to displace a health-care provider's best medical judgment based on the clinical circumstances of a particular patient or patient population. Practice guidelines are published by the ACMG or the NSGC for educational and informational purposes only, and neither the ACMG nor the NSGC "approve" or "endorse" any specific methods, practices, or sources of information.Cancer genetic consultation is an important aspect of the care of individuals at increased risk of a hereditary cancer syndrome. Yet several patient, clinician, and system-level barriers hinder identification of individuals appropriate for cancer genetics referral. Thus, the purpose of this practice guideline is to present a single set of comprehensive personal and family history criteria to facilitate identification and maximize appropriate referral of at-risk individuals for cancer genetic consultation. To develop this guideline, a literature search for hereditary cancer susceptibility syndromes was conducted using PubMed. In addition, GeneReviews and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines were reviewed when applicable. When conflicting guidelines were identified, the evidence was ranked as follows: position papers from national and professional organizations ranked highest, followed by consortium guidelines, and then peer-reviewed publications from single institutions. The criteria for cancer genetic consultation referral are provided in two formats: (i) tables that list the tumor type along with the criteria that, if met, would warrant a referral for a cancer genetic consultation and (ii) an alphabetical list of the syndromes, including a brief summary of each and the rationale for the referral criteria that were selected. Consider referral for a cancer genetic consultation if your patient or any of their first-degree relatives meet any of these referral criteria.

Reflex immunohistochemistry and microsatellite instability testing of colorectal tumors for Lynch syndrome among US cancer programs and follow-up of abnormal results.

PURPOSE: Immunohistochemistry (IHC) for MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2 protein expression and microsatellite instability (MSI) are well-established tools to screen for Lynch syndrome (LS). Although many cancer centers have adopted these tools as reflex LS screening after a colorectal cancer diagnosis, the standard of care has not been established, and no formal studies have described this practice in the United States. The purpose of this study was to describe prevalent practices regarding IHC/MSI reflex testing for LS in the United States and the subsequent follow-up of abnormal results. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 12-item survey was developed after interdisciplinary expert input. A letter of invitation, survey, and online-survey option were sent to a contact at each cancer program. A modified Dillman strategy was used to maximize the response rate. The sample included 39 National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers (NCI-CCCs), 50 randomly selected American College of Surgeons-accredited Community Hospital Comprehensive Cancer Programs (COMPs), and 50 Community Hospital Cancer Programs (CHCPs). RESULTS: The overall response rate was 50%. Seventy-one percent of NCI-CCCs, 36% of COMPs, and 15% of CHCPs were conducting reflex IHC/MSI for LS; 48% of the programs used IHC, 14% of the programs used MSI, and 38% of the programs used both IHC and MSI. One program used a presurgical information packet, four programs offered an opt-out option, and none of the programs required written consent. CONCLUSION: Although most NCI-CCCs use reflex IHC/MSI to screen for LS, this practice is not well-adopted by community hospitals. These findings may indicate an emerging standard of care and diffusion from NCI-CCC to community cancer programs. Our findings also described an important trend away from requiring written patient consent for screening.