Upper Gastrointestinal Cancers and the Role of Genetic Testing.

Beyond the few established hereditary cancer syndromes with an upper gastrointestinal cancer component, there is increasing recognition of the contribution of novel pathogenic germline variants (gPVs) to upper gastrointestinal carcinogenesis. The detection of gPVs has potential implications for novel treatment approaches of the index cancer patient as well as long-term implications for surveillance and risk-reducing measures for cancer survivors and far-reaching implications for the patients' family. With widespread availability of multigene panel testing, new associations may be identified with germline-somatic integration being critical to determining true causality of novel gPVs. Comprehensive cancer care should incorporate both somatic and germline testing.

Germline mutational variants of Turkish ovarian cancer patients suspected of Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer (HBOC) by next-generation sequencing.

Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer (HBOC) syndrome is characterized by an increased risk of developing breast cancer (BC) and ovarian cancer (OC) due to inherited genetic mutations. Understanding the genetic variants associated with HBOC is crucial for identifying individuals at high risk and implementing appropriate preventive measures. The study included 630 Turkish OC patients with confirmed diagnostic criteria of The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) concerning HBOC. Genomic DNA was extracted from peripheral blood samples, and targeted Next-generation sequencing (NGS) was performed. Bioinformatics analysis and variant interpretation were conducted to identify pathogenic variants (PVs). Our analysis revealed a spectrum of germline pathogenic variants associated with HBOC in Turkish OC patients. Notably, several pathogenic variants in BRCA1, BRCA2, and other DNA repair genes were identified. Specifically, we observed germline PVs in 130 individuals, accounting for 20.63% of the total cohort. 76 distinct PVs in genes, BRCA1 (40 PVs), BRCA2 (29 PVs), ATM (1 PV), CHEK2 (2 PVs), ERCC2 (1 PV), MUTYH (1 PV), RAD51C (1 PV), and TP53 (1PV) and also, two different PVs (i.e., c.135-2 A>G p.? in BRCA1 and c.6466_6469delTCTC in BRCA2) were detected in a 34-year-old OC patient. In conclusion, our study contributes to a better understanding of the genetic variants underlying HBOC in Turkish OC patients. These findings provide valuable insights into the genetic architecture of HBOC in the Turkish population and shed light on the potential contribution of specific germline PVs to the increased risk of OC.

Germline Mutations and Ancestry in Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Prostate cancer is the most frequently diagnosed non-cutaneous malignancy of men in the USA; notably, the incidence is higher among men of African, followed by European and Asian ancestry. Germline mutations and, in particular, mutations in DNA damage repair genes (DDRGs) have been implicated in the pathogenesis of prostate cancer. This review intends to discuss the implication of ancestry on prostate cancer, specifically in regard to lack of diversity in genomic and genetic databases and the ability of providers to properly counsel patients on the significance of cancer genetic results. RECENT FINDINGS: Ancestral differences in prostate cancer-associated DDRG germline mutations are increasingly recognized. Guidelines for treatment by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network® (NCCN®) support germline testing in certain patients, and a myriad of genetic testing panels for DDRG mutations are now available in clinical practice. However, the consensus among providers on what genes and mutations to include in the genetic tests has evolved from experience from men of European ancestry (EA). Gaps in ancestry-informed clinical practice exist in genetic risk assessment, implementation of screening, counseling, guiding recommendations, treatment, and clinical trial enrollment. The lack of diversity in tumor genomic and genetic databases may hinder ancestry-specific disease-predisposing alterations from being discovered and targeted in prostate cancer and, therefore, impede the ability of providers to accurately counsel patients on the significance of cancer genetic test results.

Universal Germline-Genetic Testing for Breast Cancer: Implementation in a Rural Practice and Impact on Shared Decision-Making.

BACKGROUND: Whereas the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) criteria restrict germline-genetic testing (GGT) to a subset of breast cancer (BC) patients, the American Society of Breast Surgeons recommends universal GGT. Although the yield of pathogenic germline variants (PGV) in unselected BC patients has been studied, the practicality and utility of incorporating universal GGT into routine cancer care in community and rural settings is understudied. This study reports real-world implementation of universal GGT for patients with breast cancer and genetics-informed, treatment decision-making in a rural, community practice with limited resources. METHODS: From 2019 to 2022, all patients with breast cancer at a small, rural hospital were offered GGT, using a genetics-extender model. Statistical analyses included Fisher's exact test, t-tests, and calculation of odds ratios. Significance was set at p < 0.05. RESULTS: Of 210 patients with breast cancer who were offered GGT, 192 (91.4%) underwent testing with 104 (54.2%) in-criteria (IC) and 88 (45.8%) out-of-criteria (OOC) with NCCN guidelines. Pathogenic germline variants were identified in 25 patients (13.0%), with PGV frequencies of 15 of 104 (14.4%) in IC and ten of 88 (11.4%) in OOC patients (p = 0.495). GGT informed treatment for 129 of 185 (69.7%) patients. CONCLUSIONS: Universal GGT was successfully implemented in a rural, community practice with > 90% uptake. Treatment was enhanced or de-escalated in those with and without clinically actionable PGVs, respectively. Universal GGT for patients with breast cancer is feasible within rural populations, enabling optimization of clinical care to patients' genetic profile, and may reduce unnecessary healthcare, resource utilization.

Hereditary Colorectal Cancer Diagnosis by Next-Generation Sequencing.

Pathogenic germline variants causally contribute to the etiology of colorectal cancer (CRC) and polyposis. The era of massively parallel sequencing, also known as next-generation sequencing (NGS), make it highly possible, effective, and efficient to offer rapid and cost-effective diagnosis for CRC. To aid clinical laboratories in testing the most clinically significant genes, along with the published ACMG CRC technical standard guidelines, this protocol aims to provide a step-by-step technical workflow for carrying out the NGS-panel based CRC molecular diagnosis focusing on the wet lab portion of library preparation and massively parallel sequencing. Using the most popular pull-down-based target enrichment, the chapter particularly encompasses genomic DNA (gDNA) fragmentation, adapter ligation, indexing, hybridization, and capture, which is the most variable and technically challenging part of NGS testing involving at least 3 quality control (QC) checkpoints plus the pre- and post-capture PCR. The gDNA extraction and sequencing is less covered because they are relatively standard technologies with little variations and choices. Although this protocol also introduces pertinent testing algorithms and a brief guideline for pre- and post-testing genetic counselling, the audiences are required to refer to National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) clinical practice guidelines to determine the most appropriate testing strategies. Since NGS panel-based testing is a highly complex and dynamic platform with multiple choices from different technology and commercial resources, this technical benchtop-based protocol also aims to cover some of the key ramification points for decision-making by each laboratory at the discretion of the directors. © 2023 Wiley Periodicals LLC. Basic Protocol: Hereditary colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnosis by next-generation sequencing.

Challenging interpretation of germline TP53 variants based on the experience of a national comprehensive cancer centre.

TP53 variant interpretation is still challenging, especially in patients with attenuated Li-Fraumeni syndrome (LFS). We investigated the prevalence of pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants and LFS disease in the Hungarian population of cancer patients. By testing 893 patients with multiplex or familial cancer, we identified and functionally characterized novel splice variants of TP53 helping accurate variant classification. The differences among various semi-automated interpretation platforms without manual curation highlight the importance of focused interpretation as the automatic classification systems do not apply the TP53-specific criteria. The predicted frequency of the TP53 P/LP variants in Hungary is 0.3 per million which most likely underestimates the real prevalence. The higher detection rate of disease-causing variants in patients with attenuated LFS phenotype compared to the control population (OR 12.5; p < 0.0001) may raise the potential benefit of the TP53 genetic testing as part of the hereditary cancer panels of patients with multiple or familial cancer even when they do not meet Chompret criteria. Tumours developed at an earlier age in phenotypic LFS patients compared to the attenuated LFS patients which complicates genetic counselling as currently there are no different recommendations in surveillance protocols for LFS, phenotypic LFS, and attenuated LFS patients.

Feasibility and early clinical impact of precision medicine for late-stage cancer patients in a regional public academic hospital.

AIM: Our goal was to describe a precision medicine program in a regional academic hospital, characterize features of included patients and present early data on clinical impact. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We prospectively included 163 eligible patients with late-stage cancer of any diagnosis from June 2020 to May 2022 in the Proseq Cancer trial. Molecular profiling of new or fresh frozen tumor biopsies was done by WES and RNAseq with parallel sequencing of non-tumoral DNA as individual reference. Cases were presented at a National Molecular Tumor Board (NMTB) for discussion of targeted treatment. Subsequently, patients were followed for at least 7 months. RESULTS: 80% (N = 131) of patients had a successful analysis done, disclosing at least one pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant in 96%. A strongly or potentially druggable variant was found in 19% and 73% of patients, respectively. A germline variant was identified in 2.5%. Median time from trial inclusion to NMTB decision was one month. One third (N = 44) of patients who underwent molecularly profiling were matched with a targeted treatment, however, only 16% were either treated (N = 16) or are waiting for treatment (N = 5), deteriorating performance status being the primary cause of failure. A history of cancer among 1st degree relatives, and a diagnosis of lung or prostate cancer correlated with greater chance of targeted treatment being available. The response rate of targeted treatments was 40%, the clinical benefit rate 53%, and the median time on treatment was 3.8 months. 23% of patients presented at NMTB were recommended clinical trial participation, not dependent on biomarkers. CONCLUSIONS: Precision medicine in end-stage cancer patients is feasible in a regional academic hospital but should continue within the frame of clinical protocols as few patients benefit. Close collaboration with comprehensive cancer centers ensures expert evaluations and equality in access to early clinical trials and modern treatment.

Access disparities and underutilization of germline genetic testing in Chilean breast cancer patients.

PURPOSE: Latin American reports on genetic cancer risk assessments are scarce. In Chile, current breast cancer (BC) guidelines do not define strategies for germline genetic testing. Our study sought to quantify the disparities in access to genetic testing in Chilean BC patients, according to international standards and their clinical characteristics to explore improvement strategies. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of invasive BC databases including patients treated in a Public Hospital (PH) and in an Academic Private Center (AC) in Santiago, Chile between 2012 and 2021. RESULTS: Of 5438 BC patients, 3955 had enough data for National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) categorization. From these, 1911 (48.3%) fulfilled NCCN criteria for germline testing, of whom, 300 were tested for germline mutations and 268 with multigene panels. A total of 65 pathogenic variants were found in this subset. As expected, BRCA1/2 mutations were the most frequent (17.7%). Access to genetic testing was higher in AC versus PH (19.6% vs. 10.3%, p = 0.0001). Other variables associated with germline genetic testing were BC diagnosis after 2018, being 45 years old or younger at diagnosis, BC family history (FH), FH of ovarian cancer, non-metastatic disease, and triple-negative subtype. CONCLUSION: In our cohort, 15% of BC patients who met NCCN criteria for germline testing were effectively tested. This percentage was even lower at the PH. Current recommendations encourage universal genetic testing for BC patients; however, our findings suggest that Chile is far from reaching such a goal and national guidelines in this regard are urgently needed. To our knowledge, this is the first study of its kind in Chile and Latin America.

Adherence to NCCN Genetic Testing Guidelines in Pancreatic Cancer and Impact on Treatment.

INTRODUCTION: National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) 2019 Guidelines recommend universal germline (GL) testing for patients (pts) with pancreatic cancer (PC), given germline mutations (gMut) can occur at a similar rate irrespective of an individual's family history of cancer. Molecular analysis of tumors in those with metastatic disease is also recommended. We aimed to determine rates of genetic testing at our institution, factors associated with testing, and outcomes of those tested. METHODS: Frequency of GL and somatic testing was examined in pts diagnosed with non-endocrine PC, with >2 visits between June 2019 and June 2021 at the Mount Sinai Health System. The clinicopathological variables and treatment outcomes were also recorded. RESULTS: A total of 149 pts met the inclusion criteria. Sixty-six pts (44%) underwent GL testing: 42 (28%) at time of diagnosis with the remainder later in treatment. The rate of GL testing increased every year: 33% (2019), 44% (2020), and 61% (2021). A family history of cancer was the only variable associated with the decision to perform GL testing. Eight pts (12% of pts tested) had pathological gMut: BRCA1 (1), BRCA2 (1), ATM (2), PALB2 (2), NTHL1 (1), both CHEK2 and APC (1). Neither gBRCA pt received a PARP inhibitor, all except one received first-line platinum. Ninety-eight pts (65.7%) had molecular tumor testing (66.7% of patients with metastases). Two pts with BRCA2 somatic mut did not have GL testing. Three pts received targeted therapies. CONCLUSION: Genetic testing based on provider discretion results in low rates of GL testing. Early results of genetic testing can have an impact on treatment decisions and trajectory of disease. Initiatives to increase testing are needed but must be feasible in real-world clinic settings.

Prevalence of Pathogenic Germline Mutations in 13 Hereditary Cancer-Related Genes in Breast Cancer Patients in Narathiwat Province, Thailand.

BACKGROUND: BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes are known to increase breast cancer's lifetime risk. Early identification of women with this inherited risk can potentially reduce the risk of breast and/or ovarian cancer and, together with early screening, decrease the mortality rate. OBJECTIVE: This study explored the frequency and distribution of genetic variants in consecutive cases of breast cancer in Narathiwat province, one of the three provinces in the southernmost Thai border. MATERIAL & METHOD: A series of 64 consecutive breast cancer patients who underwent treatment in two general hospitals in the province during the period from the year 2021 to 2022. Genotyping studies were performed using a whole exome sequencing platform. Moderate to high penetrance variants recommended by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines 2022 (ATM, BARD1, BRCA1, BRCA2, CDH1, CHEK2, NF1, PALB2, PTEN, RAD51C, RAD51D, STK11, TP53) were annotated and filtered for pathogenic, likely pathogenic, or high-impact variants. RESULTS: Pathogenic germline variants were found in 8/64 cases (12.5%), namely BRCA1 in 3 (4.7%), BRCA2 in 4 (6.3%), ATM in 1 (1.6%), and PALB2 in 1 (1.6%). One patient had two concomitant germline mutations in BRCA2 and ATM. CONCLUSION: This is the first study on the frequency of germline mutations in BRCA1/2 and other breast cancer-predisposing genes in the southernmost provinces of Thailand. At least one pathogenic germline mutation was identified in 12.5% of the study patients, which suggests that genetic testing in this population has a high potential to provide benefits.

Primary Care Implications of the Expanded National Guidelines for Germline Testing of Patients Previously Diagnosed with Colorectal Cancer.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is among the most common cancers diagnosed in the United States. Most patients are cured, have completed their routine surveillance in oncology clinics, and are being followed by primary care clinicians (PCCs). Those providers are tasked with discussing with these patients genetic testing for inherited cancer-predisposing genes that are called PGVs.Recently, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Hereditary/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Colorectal Guidelines expert panel updated their recommendations for genetic testing. It is now recommended that all patients diagnosed with CRC before age 50 be tested and patients diagnosed at age 50 or older be considered for multigene panel testing (MGPT) for inherited cancer-predisposing PGVs.Here, I discuss the basis for the NCCN expanded genetic testing recommendations and highlight the salient controversies related to genetic testing. I also review the literature that suggests that PCCs identified more training as the measure needed before they are comfortable having complex discussions related to genetic testing with their patients.

Vitamin C boosts DNA demethylation in TET2 germline mutation carriers.

BACKGROUND: Accurate regulation of DNA methylation is necessary for normal cells to differentiate, develop and function. TET2 catalyzes stepwise DNA demethylation in hematopoietic cells. Mutations in the TET2 gene predispose to hematological malignancies by causing DNA methylation overload and aberrant epigenomic landscape. Studies on mice and cell lines show that the function of TET2 is boosted by vitamin C. Thus, by strengthening the demethylation activity of TET2, vitamin C could play a role in the prevention of hematological malignancies in individuals with TET2 dysfunction. We recently identified a family with lymphoma predisposition where a heterozygous truncating germline mutation in TET2 segregated with nodular lymphocyte-predominant Hodgkin lymphoma. The mutation carriers displayed a hypermethylation pattern that was absent in the family members without the mutation. METHODS: In a clinical trial of 1 year, we investigated the effects of oral 1 g/day vitamin C supplementation on DNA methylation by analyzing genome-wide DNA methylation and gene expression patterns from the family members. RESULTS: We show that vitamin C reinforces the DNA demethylation cascade, reduces the proportion of hypermethylated loci and diminishes gene expression differences between TET2 mutation carriers and control individuals. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that vitamin C supplementation increases DNA methylation turnover and provide a basis for further work to examine the potential benefits of vitamin C supplementation in individuals with germline and somatic TET2 mutations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was registered at EudraCT with reference number of 2018-000155-41 (01.04.2019).

Integration of Universal Germline Genetic Testing for All New Breast Cancer Patients.

BACKGROUND: The American Society of Breast Surgeons recommends genetic testing (GT) for all women with breast cancer (BC), but implementation and uptake of GT has not been well-described. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed for newly diagnosed BC patients or patients with a newly identified recurrence of BC seen in a multidisciplinary clinic (MDBC) who were offered genetic counseling (GC) and GT. RESULTS: The 138 women attending the MDBC had a median age of 54 years and comprised non-Hispanic whites (46%), Asians (28%), Hispanics (17%), blacks (4%), and other (5%). Of the 105 (76%) patients without prior GT, 100 (95%) accepted GC, with 93 (93%) of these 100 patients undergoing GT. The patients meeting the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for GT were more likely to undergo GT. Testing was performed with a 67- to 84-gene panel, together with an 8- to 9-gene STAT panel if needed. Among 120 patients with reports available, including 33 patients previously tested, 15 (12%) were positive (1 BLM, 1 BRCA1, 3 BRCA2, 1 BRIP1, 1 CFTR, 1 CHEK2, 1 MUTYH, 1 PALB2, 1 PRSS1, 1 RAD50, 1 RET, and 2 TP53), 44 (37%) were negative, and 61 (51%) had an uncertain variant. The median time to STAT results (n = 50) was 8 days. The STAT results were available before surgery for 47 (98%) of the 48 STAT patients undergoing surgery. CONCLUSIONS: New BC patients attending the MDBC demonstrated high rates of acceptance of GC and GT. The combination of GC and GT can offer timely information critical to patient risk assessment and treatment planning.

Handling of Germline Findings in Clinical Comprehensive Cancer Genomic Profiling.

Patients found to have presumed germline pathogenic variants (PGPVs) during comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) require genetic counseling (GC) referrals. We retrospectively investigated the outcomes of patients with PGPVs. Among 159 patients who underwent CGP, we recommended GC for the 16 patients with PGPVs (3 with [FG group] and 13 without [G Group] a family/personal history of hereditary cancer) as well as for the 8 patients with no PGPVs, but a history (F group); 2 (67%), 5 (38%), and 3 (38%) patients received GC in the FG, G, and F groups, respectively. Germline testing results were positive in 1 and 2 patients of the FG and G groups, respectively. Among the patients recommended for GC, 58% did not receive GC due to lack of interest, poor performance status, or death. CGP contributes to the identification of germline variants in patients without a history of hereditary cancer. However, the proportion of patients who undergo GC should be improved.

Comprehensive cancer predisposition testing within the prospective MASTER trial identifies hereditary cancer patients and supports treatment decisions for rare cancers.

BACKGROUND: Germline variant evaluation in precision oncology opens new paths toward the identification of patients with genetic tumor risk syndromes and the exploration of therapeutic relevance. Here, we present the results of germline variant analysis and their clinical implications in a precision oncology study for patients with predominantly rare cancers. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Matched tumor and control genome/exome and RNA sequencing was carried out for 1485 patients with rare cancers (79%) and/or young adults (77% younger than 51 years) in the National Center for Tumor Diseases/German Cancer Consortium (NCT/DKTK) Molecularly Aided Stratification for Tumor Eradication Research (MASTER) trial, a German multicenter, prospective, observational precision oncology study. Clinical and therapeutic relevance of prospective pathogenic germline variant (PGV) evaluation was analyzed and compared to other precision oncology studies. RESULTS: Ten percent of patients (n = 157) harbored PGVs in 35 genes associated with autosomal dominant cancer predisposition, whereof up to 75% were unknown before study participation. Another 5% of patients (n = 75) were heterozygous carriers for recessive genetic tumor risk syndromes. Particularly, high PGV yields were found in patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) (28%, n = 11/40), and more specifically in wild-type GISTs (50%, n = 10/20), leiomyosarcomas (21%, n = 19/89), and hepatopancreaticobiliary cancers (16%, n = 16/97). Forty-five percent of PGVs (n = 100/221) supported treatment recommendations, and its implementation led to a clinical benefit in 40% of patients (n = 10/25). A comparison of different precision oncology studies revealed variable PGV yields and considerable differences in germline variant analysis workflows. We therefore propose a detailed workflow for germline variant evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: Genetic germline testing in patients with rare cancers can identify the very first patient in a hereditary cancer family and can lead to clinical benefit in a broad range of entities. Its routine implementation in precision oncology accompanied by the harmonization of germline variant evaluation workflows will increase clinical benefit and boost research.

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.

Clinical implications of genetic testing in familial intermediate and late-onset colorectal cancer.

The genetic background of familial, late-onset colorectal cancer (CRC) (i.e., onset > age 50 years) has not been studied as thoroughly as other subgroups of familial CRC, and the proportion of families with a germline genetic predisposition to CRC remains to be defined. To define the contribution of known or suggested CRC predisposition genes to familial late-onset CRC, we analyzed 32 well-established or candidate CRC predisposition genes in 75 families with late-onset CRC. We identified pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants in five patients in MSH6 (n = 1), MUTYH (monoallelic; n = 2) and NTHL1 (monoallelic; n = 2). In addition, we identified a number of variants of unknown significance in particular in the lower penetrant Lynch syndrome-associated mismatch repair (MMR) gene MSH6 (n = 6). In conclusion, screening using a comprehensive cancer gene panel in families with accumulation of late-onset CRC appears not to have a significant clinical value due to the low level of high-risk pathogenic variants detected. Our data suggest that only patients with abnormal MMR immunohistochemistry (IHC) or microsatellite instability (MSI) analyses, suggestive of Lynch syndrome, or a family history indicating another cancer predisposition syndrome should be prioritized for such genetic evaluations. Variants in MSH6 and MUTYH have previously been proposed to be involved in digenic or oligogenic hereditary predisposition to CRC. Accumulation of variants in MSH6 and monoallelic, pathogenic variants in MUTYH in our study indicates that digenic or oligogenic inheritance might be involved in late-onset CRC and warrants further studies of complex types of inheritance.

International Delphi consensus guidelines for follow-up after prophylactic total gastrectomy: the Life after Prophylactic Total Gastrectomy (LAP-TG) study.

BACKGROUND: Prophylactic total gastrectomy (PTG) remains the only means of preventing gastric cancer for people with genetic mutations predisposing to Hereditary Diffuse Gastric Cancer (HDGC), mainly in the CDH1 gene. The small but growing cohort of people undergoing PTG at a young age are expected to have a life-expectancy close to the general population, however, knowledge of the long-term effects of, and monitoring requirements after, PTG is limited. This study aims to define the standard of care for follow-up after PTG. METHODS: Through a combination of literature review and two-round Delphi consensus of major HDGC/PTG units and physicians, and patient advocates, we produced a set of recommendations for follow-up after PTG. RESULTS: There were 42 first round, and 62 second round, responses from clinicians, allied health professionals and patient advocates. The guidelines include recommendations for timing of assessments and specialties involved in providing follow-up, micronutrient supplementation and monitoring, bone health and the provision of written information. CONCLUSION: While the evidence supporting the guidelines is limited, expert consensus provides a framework to best manage people following PTG, and could support the collection of information on the long-term effects of PTG.

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.