Interpreting and integrating genomic tests results in clinical cancer care: Overview and practical guidance.

The last decade has seen rapid progress in the use of genomic tests, including gene panels, whole-exome sequencing, and whole-genome sequencing, in research and clinical cancer care. These advances have created expansive opportunities to characterize the molecular attributes of cancer, revealing a subset of cancer-associated aberrations called driver mutations. The identification of these driver mutations can unearth vulnerabilities of cancer cells to targeted therapeutics, which has led to the development and approval of novel diagnostics and personalized interventions in various malignancies. The applications of this modern approach, often referred to as precision oncology or precision cancer medicine, are already becoming a staple in cancer care and will expand exponentially over the coming years. Although genomic tests can lead to better outcomes by informing cancer risk, prognosis, and therapeutic selection, they remain underutilized in routine cancer care. A contributing factor is a lack of understanding of their clinical utility and the difficulty of results interpretation by the broad oncology community. Practical guidelines on how to interpret and integrate genomic information in the clinical setting, addressed to clinicians without expertise in cancer genomics, are currently limited. Building upon the genomic foundations of cancer and the concept of precision oncology, the authors have developed practical guidance to aid the interpretation of genomic test results that help inform clinical decision making for patients with cancer. They also discuss the challenges that prevent the wider implementation of precision oncology.

Insights for clinical management from the real-life data of the centralized West of Scotland biliary cancer clinic.

BACKGROUND: With the increasing of novel therapeutics for the treatment of Biliary Tract Cancers (BTC), and the need to assess their socio-economic impacts for national licence approvals, it is as important as ever to have real-life data in national populations. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed an audit of the first 2 year-activity (Sep 2019-Sep 2021) of the centralized West-of-Scotland-BTC clinic. 122 patients accessed the service, including 68% with cholangiocarcinoma (CCA), 27% with gallbladder cancer (GBC), and 5% with ampulla of Vater carcinoma with biliary phenotype (AVC). Median age at diagnosis was 66 (28-84), with 30% of newly diagnosed patients being younger than 60 years-old. Thirty-five cases (29%) underwent surgery, followed by adjuvant-chemotherapy in 66%. 60% had recurrent disease (80% with distant relapse). Sixty-four patients (58%) started first-line Systemic-AntiCancer-Treatment (SACT). Of these, 37% received second line SACT, the majority of which had iCCA and GBC. Thirty-% of those who progressed received third line SACT. CONCLUSIONS: About 30% of BTC were eligible for curative surgery. Fifty-eight and twenty% of the overall cohort of advanced BTC patients received first and second line SACT. Our data suggest that reflex genomic profiling may not be cost-effective until molecularly driven strategies are limited to second line setting.

The emotional impact of surveillance programs for pancreatic cancer on high-risk individuals: A prospective analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Literature shows that emotional status can influence participation in screening/surveillance programs, and that screening/surveillance programs may alter the psychological well-being of subjects examined. This study aims to assess if participating in a surveillance program for pancreatic cancer early detection is associated with abnormal levels of psychological distress in high-risk individuals (HRIs), compared to the general population. METHODS: Fifty-four HRIs participating in a magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP)-based surveillance program completed several psychological assessment questionnaires, investigating global functioning, self-efficacy, perceived stress, coping abilities, and social support. The questionnaires were administered by a clinical psychologist after the MRCP but before the subjects were informed about the results of the scans. The HRIs were subjects with strong familiarity of pancreatic cancer and/or carriers of known genetic mutations related to cancer susceptibility. The psychological assessment was made at the time of the first examination. RESULTS: The population was characterized by an overall good psychological status. Scoring of our sample was comparable to the general population norms. The HRIs showed decent global functioning, high self-efficacy levels, low perceived stress in the last month prior to examination, efficient emotion-focused coping strategies, and an adequate social support system. The younger subjects' subpopulation only revealed higher levels of stress. CONCLUSIONS: From a psychological point of view, an MRCP-based pancreatic cancer annual surveillance seemed not to influence the HRIs' psychological well-being, unless in young people. Further studies are needed to better establish if there are any changes in distress levels over time and how emotional status influences participation in surveillance programs.

Identification of spatially-resolved markers of malignant transformation in Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasms.

The existing Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasm (IPMN) risk stratification relies on clinical and histological factors, resulting in inaccuracies and leading to suboptimal treatment. This is due to the lack of appropriate molecular markers that can guide patients toward the best therapeutic options. Here, we assess and confirm subtype-specific markers for IPMN across two independent cohorts of patients using two Spatial Transcriptomics (ST) technologies. Specifically, we identify HOXB3 and ZNF117 as markers for Low-Grade Dysplasia, SPDEF and gastric neck cell markers in borderline cases, and NKX6-2 and gastric isthmus cell markers in High-Grade-Dysplasia Gastric IPMN, highlighting the role of TNFα and MYC activation in IPMN progression and the role of NKX6-2 in the specific Gastric IPMN progression. In conclusion, our work provides a step forward in understanding the gene expression landscapes of IPMN and the critical transcriptional networks related to PDAC progression.

Treatment of pancreatic cancer in 2022.

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is usually diagnosed at an advanced, incurable, stage and has an extremely poor prognosis. Systemic chemotherapy represents the standard treatment either in the pre-operative, adjuvant and palliative setting, which is associated with only modest improvement in survival. More recently, advances in cancer genomic sequencing have unravelled the molecular heterogeneity of PDAC and identified small patient subgroups harbouring unique actionable aberrations in BRCA, NTRK, NRG1 and mismatch repair genes paving the way to a more personalised approach for this tumour. However, the evolution of PDAC treatment towards a successful precision approach presents many challenges. In this review, we discuss the current standard treatments of PDAC, from early stage to advanced disease, and we illustrate the opportunities and challenges of precision medicine for this deadly cancer.

Germline BRCA testing in pancreatic cancer: improving awareness, timing, turnaround, and uptake.

Prognosis is generally poor for patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. However, patients with germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations (gBRCAm) may benefit from first-line platinum-based chemotherapy and maintenance therapy with the poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor olaparib following at least 16 weeks of first-line platinum-based chemotherapy without disease progression. Germline breast cancer gene (BRCA) testing is therefore important to ensure that patients receive the most effective treatment. In addition, testing for other DNA damage response gene mutations beyond gBRCAm may also guide treatment decisions. However, clinical pathways for genetic testing are often suboptimal, leading to delays in treatment initiation or missed opportunities for personalized therapy. Barriers to testing include low rates of referral and uptake, delays to referral and slow result turnaround times, cost, and biopsy and assay limitations if somatic testing is performed, leading to the requirement for subsequent dedicated germline testing. Low rates of referral may result from lack of awareness among physicians of the clinical value of testing, coupled with low confidence in interpreting test results and poor availability of genetic counseling services. Among patients, barriers to uptake may include similar lack of awareness of the clinical value of testing, anxiety regarding the implications of test results, lack of insurance coverage, fear of negative insurance implications, and socioeconomic factors. Potential solutions include innovative approaches to testing pathways, including 'mainstreaming' of testing in which BRCA tests are routinely arranged by the treating oncologist, with the involvement of genetic counselors if a patient is found to have a gBRCAm. More recently, the utility of multigene panel analyses has also been explored. Access to genetic counseling may also be improved through initiatives such as having a genetic counseling appointment for all new patient visits and telemedicine approaches, including the use of telephone consultations or DVD-assisted counseling. Educational programs will also be beneficial, and cost effectiveness is likely to improve as the number of targeted treatments increases and when the earlier detection of tumors in family members following cascade testing is considered.