The role of family history in predicting germline pathogenic variant carriers who develop pancreatic cancer: Results of a multicenter collaboration.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) surveillance is recommended for some individuals with a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant (PV/LPV) in a PDAC susceptibility gene; the recommendation is often dependent on family history of PDAC. This study aimed to describe PDAC family history in individuals with PDAC who underwent genetic testing to determine the appropriateness of including a family history requirement in these recommendations. METHODS: Individuals with PDAC with a germline heterozygous PV/LPV in ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, EPCAM, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PALB2, or PMS2 (PV/LPV carriers) were assessed for family history of PDAC in first-degree relatives (FDRs) or second-degree relatives (SDRs) from nine institutions. A control group of individuals with PDAC without a germline PV/LPV was also assessed. RESULTS: The study included 196 PV/LPV carriers and 1184 controls. In the PV/LPV carriers, 25.5% had an affected FDR and/or SDR compared to 16.9% in the control group (p = .004). PV/LPV carriers were more likely to have an affected FDR compared to the controls (p = .003) but there was no statistical difference when assessing only affected SDRs (p = .344). CONCLUSIONS: Most PV/LPV carriers who developed PDAC did not have a close family history of PDAC and would not have met most current professional societies' recommendations for consideration of PDAC surveillance before diagnosis. However, PV/LPV carriers were significantly more likely to have a family history of PDAC, particularly an affected FDR. These findings support family history as a risk modifier in PV/LPV carriers, and highlight the need to identify other risk factors.

MLH1-methylated endometrial cancer under 60 years of age as the "sentinel" cancer in female carriers of high-risk constitutional MLH1 epimutation.

OBJECTIVE: Universal screening of endometrial carcinoma (EC) for mismatch repair deficiency (MMRd) and Lynch syndrome uses presence of MLH1 methylation to omit common sporadic cases from follow-up germline testing. However, this overlooks rare cases with high-risk constitutional MLH1 methylation (epimutation), a poorly-recognized mechanism that predisposes to Lynch-type cancers with MLH1 methylation. We aimed to determine the role and frequency of constitutional MLH1 methylation among EC cases with MMRd, MLH1-methylated tumors. METHODS: We screened blood for constitutional MLH1 methylation using pyrosequencing and real-time methylation-specific PCR in patients with MMRd, MLH1-methylated EC ascertained from (i) cancer clinics (n = 4, <60 years), and (ii) two population-based cohorts; "Columbus-area" (n = 68, all ages) and "Ohio Colorectal Cancer Prevention Initiative (OCCPI)" (n = 24, <60 years). RESULTS: Constitutional MLH1 methylation was identified in three out of four patients diagnosed between 36 and 59 years from cancer clinics. Two had mono-/hemiallelic epimutation (∼50% alleles methylated). One with multiple primaries had low-level mosaicism in normal tissues and somatic "second-hits" affecting the unmethylated allele in all tumors, demonstrating causation. In the population-based cohorts, all 68 cases from the Columbus-area cohort were negative and low-level mosaic constitutional MLH1 methylation was identified in one patient aged 36 years out of 24 from the OCCPI cohort, representing one of six (∼17%) patients <50 years and one of 45 patients (∼2%) <60 years in the combined cohorts. EC was the first/dual-first cancer in three patients with underlying constitutional MLH1 methylation. CONCLUSIONS: A correct diagnosis at first presentation of cancer is important as it will significantly alter clinical management. Screening for constitutional MLH1 methylation is warranted in patients with early-onset EC or synchronous/metachronous tumors (any age) displaying MLH1 methylation.

Constitutional MLH1 Methylation Is a Major Contributor to Mismatch Repair-Deficient, MLH1-Methylated Colorectal Cancer in Patients Aged 55 Years and Younger.

BACKGROUND: Most mismatch repair-deficient (MMRd) colorectal cancer (CRC) cases arise sporadically, associated with somatic MLH1 methylation, whereas approximately 20% have germline mismatch repair pathogenic variants causing Lynch syndrome (LS). Universal screening of incident CRC uses presence of MLH1 methylation in MMRd tumors to exclude sporadic cases from germline testing for LS. However, this overlooks rare cases with constitutional MLH1 methylation (epimutation), a poorly recognized mechanism for LS. We aimed to assess the frequency and age distribution of constitutional MLH1 methylation among incident CRC cases with MMRd, MLH1-methylated tumors. METHODS: In retrospective population-based studies, we selected all CRC cases with MMRd, MLH1-methylated tumors, regardless of age, prior cancer, family history, or BRAF V600E status, from the Columbus-area HNPCC study (Columbus) and Ohio Colorectal Cancer Prevention Initiative (OCCPI) cohorts. Blood DNA was tested for constitutional MLH1 methylation by pyrosequencing and real-time methylation-specific PCR, then confirmed with bisulfite-sequencing. RESULTS: Results were achieved for 95 of 98 Columbus cases and all 281 OCCPI cases. Constitutional MLH1 methylation was identified in 4 of 95 (4%) Columbus cases, ages 34, 38, 52, and 74 years, and 4 of 281 (1.4%) OCCPI cases, ages 20, 34, 50, and 55 years, with 3 showing low-level mosaic methylation. Mosaicism in blood and normal colon, plus tumor loss of heterozygosity of the unmethylated allele, demonstrated causality in 1 case with sample availability. Age stratification showed high rates of constitutional MLH1 methylation among younger patients. In the Columbus and OCCPI cohorts, respectively, these rates were 67% (2 of 3) and 25% (2 of 8) of patients aged <50 years but with half of the cases missed, and 75% (3 of 4) and 23.5% (4 of 17) of patients aged ≤55 years with most cases detected. CONCLUSIONS: Although rare overall, a significant proportion of younger patients with MLH1-methylated CRC had underlying constitutional MLH1 methylation. Routine testing for this high-risk mechanism is warranted in patients aged ≤55 years for a timely and accurate molecular diagnosis that will significantly alter their clinical management while minimizing additional testing.

Using Somatic Mutations from Tumors to Classify Variants in Mismatch Repair Genes.

Present guidelines for classification of constitutional variants do not incorporate inferences from mutations seen in tumors, even when these are associated with a specific molecular phenotype. When somatic mutations and constitutional mutations lead to the same molecular phenotype, as for the mismatch repair genes, information from somatic mutations may enable interpretation of previously unclassified variants. To test this idea, we first estimated likelihoods that somatic variants in MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2 drive microsatellite instability and characteristic IHC staining patterns by calculating likelihoods of high versus low normalized variant read fractions of 153 mutations known to be pathogenic versus those of 760 intronic passenger mutations from 174 paired tumor-normal samples. Mutations that explained the tumor mismatch repair phenotype had likelihood ratio for high variant read fraction of 1.56 (95% CI 1.42-1.71) at sites with no loss of heterozygosity and of 26.5 (95% CI 13.2-53.0) at sites with loss of heterozygosity. Next, we applied these ratios to 165 missense, synonymous, and splice variants observed in tumors, combining in a Bayesian analysis the likelihood ratio corresponding with the adjusted variant read fraction with pretest probabilities derived from published analyses and public databases. We suggest classifications for 86 of 165 variants: 7 benign, 31 likely benign, 22 likely pathogenic, and 26 pathogenic. These results illustrate that for mismatch repair genes, characterization of tumor mutations permits tumor mutation data to inform constitutional variant classification. We suggest modifications to incorporate molecular phenotype in future variant classification guidelines.

Cumulative Burden of Colorectal Cancer-Associated Genetic Variants Is More Strongly Associated With Early-Onset vs Late-Onset Cancer.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Early-onset colorectal cancer (CRC, in persons younger than 50 years old) is increasing in incidence; yet, in the absence of a family history of CRC, this population lacks harmonized recommendations for prevention. We aimed to determine whether a polygenic risk score (PRS) developed from 95 CRC-associated common genetic risk variants was associated with risk for early-onset CRC. METHODS: We studied risk for CRC associated with a weighted PRS in 12,197 participants younger than 50 years old vs 95,865 participants 50 years or older. PRS was calculated based on single nucleotide polymorphisms associated with CRC in a large-scale genome-wide association study as of January 2019. Participants were pooled from 3 large consortia that provided clinical and genotyping data: the Colon Cancer Family Registry, the Colorectal Transdisciplinary Study, and the Genetics and Epidemiology of Colorectal Cancer Consortium and were all of genetically defined European descent. Findings were replicated in an independent cohort of 72,573 participants. RESULTS: Overall associations with CRC per standard deviation of PRS were significant for early-onset cancer, and were stronger compared with late-onset cancer (P for interaction = .01); when we compared the highest PRS quartile with the lowest, risk increased 3.7-fold for early-onset CRC (95% CI 3.28-4.24) vs 2.9-fold for late-onset CRC (95% CI 2.80-3.04). This association was strongest for participants without a first-degree family history of CRC (P for interaction = 5.61 × 10-5). When we compared the highest with the lowest quartiles in this group, risk increased 4.3-fold for early-onset CRC (95% CI 3.61-5.01) vs 2.9-fold for late-onset CRC (95% CI 2.70-3.00). Sensitivity analyses were consistent with these findings. CONCLUSIONS: In an analysis of associations with CRC per standard deviation of PRS, we found the cumulative burden of CRC-associated common genetic variants to associate with early-onset cancer, and to be more strongly associated with early-onset than late-onset cancer, particularly in the absence of CRC family history. Analyses of PRS, along with environmental and lifestyle risk factors, might identify younger individuals who would benefit from preventive measures.

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.

Clinical characteristics of patients with colorectal cancer with double somatic mismatch repair mutations compared with Lynch syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) with mismatch repair-deficient (dMMR) tumours without MLH1 methylation or germline MMR pathogenic variants (PV) were previously thought to have Lynch syndrome (LS). It is now appreciated that they can have double somatic (DS) MMR PVs. We explored the clinical characteristics between patients with DS tumours and LS in two population-based cohorts. METHODS: We included patients with CRC from Ohio 2013-2016 and Iceland 2000-2009. All had microsatellite instability testing and/or immunohistochemistry (IHC) of MMR proteins, and MLH1 methylation testing when indicated. Germline next-generation sequencing was performed for all with dMMR tumours; tumour sequencing followed for patients with unexplained dMMR. Clinical characteristics of DS patients and patients with LS were compared. RESULTS: Of the 232 and 51 patients with non-methylated dMMR tumours in the Ohio and Iceland cohorts, respectively, 57.8% (n=134) and 45.1% (n=23) had LS, 32.8% (n=76) and 31.4% (n=16) had DS PVs, 6% (n=14) and 9.8% (n=5) were unexplained and 4.3% (n=10) and 13.7% (n=7) had incorrect IHC. Age of diagnosis for DS patients was older than patients with LS (p=3.73×10-4) in the two cohorts. Patients with LS were more likely to meet Amsterdam II criteria (OR=15.81, p=8.47×10-6) and have multiple LS-associated tumours (OR=6.67, p=3.31×10-5). Absence of MLH1/PMS2 was predictive of DS PVs; isolated MSH6 and PMS2 absence was predictive of LS in both cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with LS are 15× more likely to meet Amsterdam II criteria and >5× more likely to have multiple cancers as compared with those with DS tumours. Furthermore, isolated loss of MSH6 or PMS2 protein predicts LS.

Prevalence of Germline Mutations in Polyposis and Colorectal Cancer-Associated Genes in Patients With Multiple Colorectal Polyps.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Guidelines recommend genetic testing of patients with 10 or more cumulative adenomatous polyps. However, little is known about the utility of these tests-especially for older patients. We aimed to determine the prevalence of pathogenic mutations in patients with multiple colorectal polyps, stratified by age. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study of patients with 10 or more colorectal polyps who underwent multigene panel testing (MGPT) from March 2012 through December 2016 (n = 3789). Demographic, clinical and family history data were obtained from test requisition forms and accompanying clinic notes, pedigrees, and pathology reports. Subjects were stratified based on reported polyp histology. Primary outcomes of interest were gene mutations associated with adenomatous polyposis, hamartomatous polyposis, and non-polyposis colorectal cancer syndromes. RESULTS: Based on MGPT, the prevalence of mutations in adenomatous polyposis genes decreased with increasing age in all polyp count groups in the adenoma cohort (P < .001 for 10-19, 20-99, and 100 or more polyps). The prevalence of mutations in all genes of interest also decreased with increasing age but remained above 5% in all age and polyp cohorts. Increased age at testing was associated with a significantly lower risk of a mutation in any gene of interest with multivariate analysis. In the hamartoma cohort, the prevalence of mutations in hamartomatous polyposis genes was high regardless of polyp count (40% with 10-19 polyps, 72.1% with 20-99 polyps, and 50% with 100 or more polyps). CONCLUSION: Our findings support continued genetic testing of patients with 10 or more polyps including adenomas and/or hamartomas. MGPT that includes analysis of polyposis and non-polyposis colorectal cancer genes should be considered for these patients given the high proportion with mutations (above 5%) in all age groups.

Two-stain immunohistochemical screening for Lynch syndrome in colorectal cancer may fail to detect mismatch repair deficiency.

Universal screening for Lynch syndrome in colorectal cancer is recommended, and immunohistochemistry for the mismatch repair proteins is commonly used. To reduce cost, some screen using only MSH6 and PMS2, with reflex to the partner stain if either are absent (two-stain method). An expression pattern revealing absent MSH2 and intact MSH6 is not expected, but could result in failed Lynch syndrome detection. We analyzed tumors with absent MSH2 but any degree of MSH6 expression to determine if the two-stain method could miss MSH2 mutations. One-thousand seven-hundred thirty colorectal cancer patients from the Ohio Colorectal Cancer Prevention Initiative underwent tumor screening using microsatellite instability and immunohistochemistry. The two-stain method was used for 1235 cases; staining for all four proteins was completed for 495 cases. The proportion of positive cells and staining intensity were reviewed for MSH6, as well as MSH2 when available. Patients with mismatch repair deficiency underwent next-generation sequencing of germline DNA for mismatch repair genes. If negative, tumor next-generation sequencing was performed to assess for somatic mutations. Overall, thirty-three (1.9%, 33/1730) MSH2-absent cases were identified. Of those, fourteen had no MSH6 expression but eight (0.5%, 8/1730) had ambiguous and eleven (0.6%, 11/1730) had convincing MSH6 expression that could have been interpreted as intact. Germline next-generation sequencing identified MSH2 mutations in 11/14 cases with absence of both stains, 7/8 cases with ambiguous MSH6 expression, and 9/11 cases with convincing MSH6 expression. All remaining cases, except one, had double somatic mutations. The two-stain method fails to detect some patients with Lynch syndrome: (1) significant staining weaker than the control may be incorrectly interpreted as intact MSH6, or (2) Weak or focal/patchy MSH6 can be retained with the absence of MSH2. Accordingly, we recommend the four-stain method be used for optimal Lynch syndrome screening detection.

Frequent PIK3CA Mutations in Colorectal and Endometrial Tumors With 2 or More Somatic Mutations in Mismatch Repair Genes.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Some colorectal and endometrial tumors with microsatellite instability not attributable to MLH1 hypermethylation or germline mutations contain 2 or more somatic mutations in genes encoding mismatch repair (MMR) proteins. We sought to define the molecular phenotype of this newly recognized tumor subtype. METHODS: From 2 prospective studies of the efficacy of screening for Lynch syndrome, we identified patients with colorectal and endometrial tumors who had 2 or more somatic (but not germline) mutations in genes encoding MMR proteins (double somatic). We determined the frequencies of tumor mutations in PIK3CA, BRAF, KRAS, NRAS, and PTEN by targeted next-generation sequencing and used logistic-regression models to compare them with those from patients with Lynch syndrome, MLH1-hypermethylated, or microsatellite-stable tumors. We validated our findings using independent data sets from The Cancer Genome Atlas. RESULTS: Among colorectal cancer cases, we found that 14 of 21 (67%) patients with double somatic tumors also had PIK3CA mutations, compared with 4 of 18 (22%) tumors from patients with Lynch syndrome, 2 of 10 (20%) tumors with MLH1 hypermethylation, and 12 of 78 (15%) tumors with microsatellite stability (P < .0001 for patients with double somatic tumors vs other subgroups). Mutations in PIK3CA were detected in all 13 patients with double somatic endometrial cancers (P = .04 compared with other subgroups). We did not detect BRAF mutations in patients with double somatic colorectal tumors or Lynch syndrome. We found highly similar results in a validation cohort from The Cancer Genome Atlas (113 patients with colorectal tumors, 178 endometrial tumors); 100% of double somatic cases had a somatic mutation in PIK3CA (P < .0001 compared with other subgroups). CONCLUSIONS: Most patients with colorectal or endometrial tumors with 2 or more somatic (but not germline) mutations in MMR proteins also have mutations in PIK3CA; mutations in PIK3CA are detected at substantially higher frequencies in these double somatic tumors than in other microsatellite-instability subgroups. PIK3CA mutation status might be used to identify a specific group of colorectal tumors, and to select treatment or determine prognosis.

Epigenetic silencing of MLH1 in endometrial cancers is associated with larger tumor volume, increased rate of lymph node positivity and reduced recurrence-free survival.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the relationship between mismatch repair (MMR) classification and clinicopathologic features including tumor volume, and explore outcomes by MMR class in a contemporary cohort. METHODS: Single institution cohort evaluating MMR classification for endometrial cancers (EC). MMR immunohistochemistry (IHC)±microsatellite instability (MSI) testing and reflex MLH1 methylation testing was performed. Tumors with MMR abnormalities by IHC or MSI and MLH1 methylation were classified as epigenetic MMR deficiency while those without MLH1 methylation were classified as probable MMR mutations. Clinicopathologic characteristics were analyzed. RESULTS: 466 endometrial cancers were classified; 75% as MMR proficient, 20% epigenetic MMR defects, and 5% as probable MMR mutations. Epigenetic MMR defects were associated with advanced stage, higher grade, presence of lymphovascular space invasion, and older age. MMR class was significantly associated with tumor volume, an association not previously reported. The epigenetic MMR defect tumors median volume was 10,220mm3 compared to 3321mm3 and 2,846mm3, for MMR proficient and probable MMR mutations respectively (P<0.0001). Higher tumor volume was associated with lymph node involvement. Endometrioid EC cases with epigenetic MMR defects had significantly reduced recurrence-free survival (RFS). Among advanced stage (III/IV) endometrioid EC the epigenetic MMR defect group was more likely to recur compared to the MMR proficient group (47.7% vs 3.4%) despite receiving similar adjuvant therapy. In contrast, there was no difference in the number of early stage recurrences for the different MMR classes. CONCLUSIONS: MMR testing that includes MLH1 methylation analysis defines a subset of tumors that have worse prognostic features and reduced RFS.

Colon and endometrial cancers with mismatch repair deficiency can arise from somatic, rather than germline, mutations.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Patients with Lynch syndrome carry germline mutations in single alleles of genes encoding the mismatch repair (MMR) proteins MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2; when the second allele becomes mutated, cancer can develop. Increased screening for Lynch syndrome has identified patients with tumors that have deficiency in MMR, but no germline mutations in genes encoding MMR proteins. We investigated whether tumors with deficient MMR had acquired somatic mutations in patients without germline mutations in MMR genes using next-generation sequencing. METHODS: We analyzed blood and tumor samples from 32 patients with colorectal or endometrial cancer who participated in Lynch syndrome screening studies in Ohio and were found to have tumors with MMR deficiency (based on microsatellite instability and/or absence of MMR proteins in immunohistochemical analysis, without hypermethylation of MLH1), but no germline mutations in MMR genes. Tumor DNA was sequenced for MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2, EPCAM, POLE, and POLD1 with ColoSeq and mutation frequencies were established. RESULTS: Twenty-two of 32 patients (69%) were found to have 2 somatic (tumor) mutations in MMR genes encoding proteins that were lost from tumor samples, based on immunohistochemistry. Of the 10 remaining tumors 3 had one somatic mutation in a MMR gene, with possible loss of heterozygosity that could lead to MMR deficiency, 6 were found to be false-positive results (19%), and 1 had only one mutation in a MMR gene and remained unexplained. All of the tumors found to have somatic MMR mutations were of the hypermutated phenotype (>12 mutations/megabase); 6 had mutation frequencies >200/megabase, and 5 of these had somatic mutations in POLE, which encodes a DNA polymerase. CONCLUSIONS: Some patients are found to have tumors with MMR defects during screening for Lynch syndrome, yet have no identifiable germline mutations in MMR genes. We found that almost 70% of these patients acquire somatic mutations in MMR genes, leading to a hypermutated phenotype of tumor cells. Patients with colon or endometrial cancers with MMR deficiency not explained by germline mutations might undergo analysis for tumor mutations in MMR genes to guide future surveillance guidelines.

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.

EPM2AIP1 immunohistochemistry is inadequate as a surrogate marker for MLH1 promoter hypermethylation testing in colorectal cancer.

MLH1 promoter hypermethylation (MPH) analysis is an essential step in the universal tumor testing algorithm for Lynch syndrome, the most common inherited predisposition to colorectal cancer (CRC). MPH usually indicates sporadic CRC. EPM2AIP1 gene shares the same promoter as MLH1, therefore MPH should also silence EPM2AIP1 transcription leading to loss of protein expression on immunohistochemistry (IHC). It has been previously reported that EPM2AIP1 IHC can be used as a surrogate for MPH in endometrial cancer. Our goal was to evaluate the feasibility of EPM2AIP1 IHC as a surrogate for MPH in CRC. 101 microsatellite instable CRC cases were selected, including 19 cases from whole tumor sections and 82 cases from tissue microarrays. 74 cases were with MPH and 27 without MPH. All 74 cases with MPH showed absent MLH1 by IHC, but only 47 (64%) exhibited loss of expression of EPM2AIP1. Of the 27 cases without MPH, 9 (33%) cases had unexpected loss of EPM2AIP1 expression. Of note, 10 cases were MLH1-mutated Lynch syndrome without MPH, and 2 of these cases showed unexpected loss of EPM2AIP1 staining. Of the 6 cases with double somatic mutations of MLH1 gene (without MPH), only 4 cases demonstrated intact expression of EPM2AIP1 as expected. Taken together, EPM2AIP1 loss was 64% sensitive and 67% specific for MPH, with an accuracy of 64%. We conclude that, unless stain quality improves with different clones or platforms, EPM2AIP1 IHC will likely not be useful as a surrogate test for MPH in CRC.

Large-scale alternative polyadenylation-wide association studies to identify putative cancer susceptibility genes.

Alternative polyadenylation (APA) modulates mRNA processing in the 3' untranslated regions (3' UTR), affecting mRNA stability and translation efficiency. Research into genetically regulated APA has the potential to provide insights into cancer risk. Herein, we conducted large alternative polyadenylation-wide association studies (APA-WAS) to investigate associations of APA levels with cancer risk. Genetic models were built to predict APA levels in multiple tissues using genotype and RNA-sequencing data from 1,337 samples from the Genotype-Tissue Expression Project. Associations of genetically predicted APA levels with cancer risk were assessed by applying the prediction models to data from large genome-wide association studies of six common cancers among European-ancestry populations, including breast, ovary, prostate, colorectum, lung, and pancreas. A total of 58 risk genes (corresponding to 76 APA sites) were associated with at least one type of cancer, including 25 genes previously not linked to cancer susceptibility. Of the identified risk APAs, 97.4% and 26.3% were supported by 3' UTR APA quantitative trait loci and co-localization analyses, respectively. Luciferase reporter assays for four selected putative regulatory 3' UTR variants demonstrated that the risk alleles of 3' UTR variants, rs324015 (STAT6), rs2280503 (DIP2B), rs1128450 (FBXO38), and rs145220637 (LDHA), significantly increased the post-transcriptional activities of their target genes compared to reference alleles. Furthermore, knockdown of the target genes confirmed their ability to promote proliferation and migration. Overall, this study provides insights into the role of APA in the genetic susceptibility to common cancers.

Impact of weight loss on cancer-related proteins in serum: results from a cluster randomised controlled trial of individuals with type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes is associated with higher risk of several cancer types. However, the biological intermediates driving this relationship are not fully understood. As novel interventions for treating and managing type 2 diabetes become increasingly available, whether they also disrupt the pathways leading to increased cancer risk is currently unknown. We investigated the effect of a type 2 diabetes intervention, in the form of intentional weight loss, on circulating proteins associated with cancer risk to gain insight into potential mechanisms linking type 2 diabetes and adiposity with cancer development. METHODS: Fasting serum samples from participants with diabetes enrolled in the Diabetes Remission Clinical Trial (DiRECT) receiving the Counterweight-Plus weight-loss programme (intervention, N = 117, mean weight-loss 10 kg, 46% diabetes remission) or best-practice care by guidelines (control, N = 143, mean weight-loss 1 kg, 4% diabetes remission) were subject to proteomic analysis using the Olink Oncology-II platform (48% of participants were female; 52% male). To identify proteins which may be altered by the weight-loss intervention, the difference in protein levels between groups at baseline and 1 year was examined using linear regression. Mendelian randomization (MR) was performed to extend these results to evaluate cancer risk and elucidate possible biological mechanisms linking type 2 diabetes and cancer development. MR analyses were conducted using independent datasets, including large cancer meta-analyses, UK Biobank, and FinnGen, to estimate potential causal relationships between proteins modified during intentional weight loss and the risk of colorectal, breast, endometrial, gallbladder, liver, and pancreatic cancers. FINDINGS: Nine proteins were modified by the intervention: glycoprotein Nmb; furin; Wnt inhibitory factor 1; toll-like receptor 3; pancreatic prohormone; erb-b2 receptor tyrosine kinase 2; hepatocyte growth factor; endothelial cell specific molecule 1 and Ret proto-oncogene (Holm corrected P-value <0.05). Mendelian randomization analyses indicated a causal relationship between predicted circulating furin and glycoprotein Nmb on breast cancer risk (odds ratio (OR) = 0.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.67-0.99, P-value = 0.03; and OR = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.78-0.99, P-value = 0.04 respectively), though these results were not supported in sensitivity analyses examining violations of MR assumptions. INTERPRETATION: Intentional weight loss among individuals with recently diagnosed diabetes may modify levels of cancer-related proteins in serum. Further evaluation of the proteins identified in this analysis could reveal molecular pathways that mediate the effect of adiposity and type 2 diabetes on cancer risk. FUNDING: The main sources of funding for this work were Diabetes UK, Cancer Research UK, World Cancer Research Fund, and Wellcome.

Universal tumor screening for lynch syndrome on colorectal cancer biopsies impacts surgical treatment decisions.

Universal tumor screening (UTS) for Lynch syndrome (LS) on colorectal cancer (CRC) can be performed on biopsies or resection specimens. The advantage of biopsies is the chance to provide preoperative genetic counseling/testing (GC/T) so patients diagnosed with LS can make informed decisions regarding resection extent. We evaluated utilization of UTS on biopsies, percentage of patients with deficient mismatch repair (dMMR) who underwent GC/T preoperatively, and whether surgical/treatment decisions were impacted. We performed a retrospective review of medical records to assess CRC cases with dMMR immunohistochemical staining from 1/1/2017 to 2/26/2021. 1144 CRC patients had UTS using MMR immunohistochemistry; 559 biopsies (48.9%) and 585 resections (51.1%). The main reason UTS was not performed on biopsy was it occurred outside our health system. 58 (5%) of CRCs were dMMR and did not have MLH1 promoter hypermethylation (if MLH1 and PMS2 absent). 28/58 (48.3%) of dMMR cases were diagnosed on biopsy. Of those 28, 14 (50%) eventually underwent GC/T, and 7 (25%) had GT results prior to surgery. One of the 7 had incomplete documentation of results affecting their treatment plan. Of the remaining 6 with complete documentation, 5 underwent surgery and one was treated with immunotherapy only. Three patients elected a more extensive surgery. 6/28 (21.4%) dMMR patients identified on biopsy made an informed surgical/treatment decision based on their dMMR status/LS diagnosis. When applied, UTS on biopsy followed by genetic counseling and testing informs surgical decision-making. Process and implementation strategies are in place to overcome challenges to more broadly optimize this approach.

Mismatch repair protein status of non-neoplastic uterine and intestinal mucosa in patients with Lynch syndrome and double somatic mismatch repair protein mutations.

Mismatch repair (MMR) protein-deficient non-neoplastic colonic crypts and endometrial glands (dMMR crypts and glands) have been reported as a unique marker of underlying Lynch syndrome (LS). However, no large studies have directly compared the frequency of detection in cases with double somatic (DS) MMR mutations. We retrospectively analyzed 42 colonic resection specimens (24 LS and 18 DS) and 20 endometrial specimens (9 LS and 11 DS), including 19 hysterectomies and 1 biopsy for dMMR crypts and glands. All specimens were from patients with known primary cancers, including colonic adenocarcinomas and endometrial endometrioid carcinomas (including 2 mixed carcinomas). Four blocks of normal mucosa away from the tumor were selected from most cases, as available. MMR immunohistochemistry specific to the primary tumor mutations was analyzed. dMMR crypts were found in 65% of LS and 0% of DS MMR-mutated colonic adenocarcinomas (P < .001). Most dMMR crypts were detected in the colon (12 of 15) compared to the ileum (3 of 15). dMMR crypts showed single and grouped losses of MMR immunohistochemical expression. dMMR glands were found in 67% of LS and 9% (1 of 11) of DS endometrial cases (P = .017). Most dMMR glands were found in the uterine wall, with 1 LS and 1 DS case exhibiting dMMR glands in the lower uterine segment. Most cases exhibited multifocal and grouped dMMR glands. No morphologic atypia was identified in dMMR crypts or glands. Overall, we demonstrate that dMMR crypts and glands are highly associated with underlying LS, while being rarer in those with DS MMR mutations.

Mainstreaming germline genetic testing for patients with pancreatic cancer increases uptake.

Germline genetic testing is recommended for all patients with pancreatic cancer (PC) but uptake rates are low. We implemented a mainstreaming program in oncology clinics to increase testing for PC patients. Genetic counselors trained oncology providers to offer a standardized multigene panel and obtain informed consent using an educational video. Pre-test genetic counseling was available upon request. Otherwise, patients with identified pathogenic variants, strong family history, or questions regarding their results were referred for post-test genetic counseling. We measured rates of testing and genetic counseling visits. From September 2019 to April 2021, 245 patients with PC underwent genetic testing. This represents a 6.5-fold increase in germline testing volume (95% confidence interval 5.2-8.1) compared to previous years. At least one pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant (PV/LPV) was found in 34 (13.9%) patients, including 17 (6.9%) PV/LPVs in high or moderate risk genes and 18 (7.3%) in low risk or recessive genes. Five (2.0%) PVs had implications on treatment selection. 22 of the positive patients (64.7%) and an additional 8 PC patients (1 negative, 3 VUS, and 4 pre-test) underwent genetic counseling during the study period. Genetic counselors saw 2.0 PC patients/month prior to this project, 1.6 PC patients/month during this project, and would have seen 2.2 PC patients/month if all patients with pathogenic variants attended post-test counseling. Conclusions Mainstreaming genetic testing expands access for PC patients without overwhelming genetic counseling resources.