Germline Cancer Risk Profiles of Patients With Young-Onset Colorectal Cancer: Findings From a Prospective Universal Germline Testing and Telegenetics Program.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer is being increasingly diagnosed in people younger than 50 years. An inheritable cancer predisposition has been reported in 22% of the young-onset cases. Assessment of germline risk is critical for personalized cancer care. OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to implement universal germline cancer risk assessment and testing and to define the germline cancer risk profiles of patients presenting with young-onset disease. DESIGN: This is a prospective cohort study. SETTINGS: This study was conducted at a tertiary-referral academic medical center. PATIENTS: This study included newly diagnosed patients presenting to surgical clinics between September 2019 and February 2021 who were treated on a standardized care pathway including the universal germline risk assessment. INTERVENTIONS: Patients received educational material on young-onset disease, genetic testing, and insurance coverage followed by genetic counseling (either remotely by telegenetics or in person). Consenting patients were assessed on a 47-gene common hereditary cancer panel. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was a proportion of patients with identifiable germline cancer predisposition. RESULTS: Among 500 patients with colorectal cancer, 185 (37%) were 50 years of age or younger (median: 44). A family history was absent for the majority of patients (123; 67%), and in 15 patients, tumors (8.1%) were deficient in DNA mismatch repair. Germline testing was completed in 130 patients (70%); the remainder were pending (7%), deceased (1%), or declined (22%). Pathogenic germline mutations were identified in 25 of 130 (19%) patients: 12 in mismatch repair genes and 13 in other genes. A variant of uncertain significance was found in 23 (18%) patients. Importantly, a pathogenic germline mutation was identified in 12% of the patients without a family history (versus 32% with; p = 0.015) and in 13% of those with proficient mismatch repair colorectal cancers (versus 71% if deficient; p < 0.001). LIMITATIONS: The study is limited by its implementation at a single tertiary academic institution. CONCLUSIONS: One in 5 patients with young-onset disease harbored germline cancer predisposition. This detection rate, coupled with a high level of interest and acceptance from patients and feasibility of implementation, supports universal germline cancer risk assessment in this patient population. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B925 . PERFILES DE RIESGO DE CNCER DE LNEA GERMINAL DE PACIENTES CON CNCER COLORRECTAL DE INICIO JOVEN HALLAZGOS DE UN PROGRAMA UNIVERSAL PROSPECTIVO DE PRUEBAS DE LNEA GERMINAL Y TELEGENTICA: ANTECEDENTES:El cáncer colorrectal se diagnostica cada vez más en personas menores de 50 años. Se ha informado una predisposición hereditaria al cáncer en el 22 % de los casos de aparición temprana. La evaluación del riesgo de la línea germinal es fundamental para la atención personalizada del cáncer.OBJETIVO:Implementar la evaluación y las pruebas universales de riesgo de cáncer de línea germinal, y definir los perfiles de riesgo de cáncer de línea germinal de los pacientes que presentan una enfermedad de aparición temprana.DISEÑO:Un estudio de cohorte prospectivo.AJUSTE:Un centro médico académico de referencia terciaria.PACIENTES:Los pacientes recién diagnosticados que se presentaron en clínicas quirúrgicas entre Septiembre de 2019 y Febrero de 2021 fueron tratados en una vía de atención estandarizada que incluye una evaluación de riesgo de línea germinal universal.INTERVENCIÓN:Los pacientes recibieron material educativo sobre enfermedades de aparición temprana, pruebas genéticas y cobertura de seguro, seguido de asesoramiento genético (ya sea a distancia por telegenética o en persona). Los pacientes que dieron su consentimiento fueron evaluados en un panel de cánceres hereditarios comunes de 47 genes.MEDIDA DE RESULTADO PRINCIPAL:Proporción de pacientes con predisposición identificable al cáncer de línea germinal.RESULTADOS:Entre 500 pacientes con cáncer colorrectal, 185 (37%) tenían 50 años o menos (mediana: 44). No había antecedentes familiares en la mayoría (123, 67%) y 15 tumores (8,1%) eran deficientes en la reparación del desajuste de ácido desoxirribonucleico. La prueba de línea germinal se completó en 130 pacientes (70%); el resto estaban pendientes (7%), fallecidos (1%) o declinados (22%). Se identificaron mutaciones patogénicas de la línea germinal en 25 (de 130, 19%) pacientes: 12 en genes de reparación de errores de emparejamiento y 13 en otros genes. Se encontró una variante de significado incierto en 23 (18%) pacientes. Es importante señalar que se identificó una mutación germinal patogénica en el 12% de los pacientes sin antecedentes familiares (frente al 32% con; p = 0,015) y en el 13% de aquellos con cánceres colorrectales competentes en la reparación de errores de emparejamiento (frente al 71% si eran deficientes; p < 0,001).LIMITACIÓN:Implementado en una sola institución académica terciaria.CONCLUSIÓN:Uno de cada cinco pacientes con enfermedad de inicio joven albergaba predisposición al cáncer de línea germinal. Esta tasa de detección, junto con un alto nivel de interés y aceptación por parte de los pacientes y la viabilidad de la implementación, respaldan la evaluación universal del riesgo de cáncer de línea germinal en esta población de pacientes. Consulte el Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B925 . (Traducción-Dr. Yesenia Rojas-Khalil ).

Influence of genetic counselor medical history on specialty and psychosocial practice in North America.

A personal or family medical history is inherently part of a genetic counselor's life story. Yet, the degree to which this history influences counselors' clinical specialty choice and professional psychosocial practice is unexplored. A medical diagnosis may foster capacity for greater empathy, understanding, and rapport-building self-disclosure. Conversely, it could lead to disruptive countertransference, compassion fatigue, and eventually burnout. Research, however, has not specifically investigated this intersection. The aim of this study was to explore the impact of genetic counselors' personal and/or family medical history on choice of practice area and self-perceived impact on their psychosocial work within sessions. Members of the National Society of Genetic Counselors were recruited to complete an online screening survey. Of the 69 survey respondents that met inclusion criteria, 23 volunteered for and completed a telephone interview. Interview questions explored counselors' medical narratives and their consequent influence on specialty choice and clinical interaction with patients. Inductive analysis yielded nine domains within three major themes: Medical Story, Specialty Impact, and Psychosocial Influence. Participants were more likely to be attracted to a specialty possessing overlap with their medical history and attributed many of their psychosocial strengths to personal and/or family medical experiences, such as increased empathy or a more expansive scope in how they cared for patients. Many counselors, however, noted their medical history did not frequently influence their clinical practice, with most initially denying or downplaying use of self-disclosure about their history. Contradictory to their statements, the majority gave at least one example of self-disclosure, whether indirect, prompted, or direct. Importantly, almost all participants named or demonstrated countertransference. This study highlights that while medical history can be a valuable asset in providing care for patients, it requires a genetic counselor's diligent attentiveness and commitment to honest self-reflection.

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

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

Naproxen chemoprevention promotes immune activation in Lynch syndrome colorectal mucosa.

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

Genetic counselor approaches to BRCA1/2 direct-to-consumer genetic testing results.

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommends clinical-grade genetic testing to confirm commercial results from direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTC-GT) companies and third-party interpretation (TPI) services; however, the type of confirmatory testing that genetic counselors (GCs) recommend remains uncharacterized. Therefore, we aimed to describe GCs testing strategies for patients who have already obtained DTC-GT results (23andMe) or TPI data (Promethease) that reported a BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant. We invited GCs specializing in clinical cancer genetics to complete an online survey distributed to members of the National Society of Genetic Counselors. The survey, completed by 80 respondents, contained case scenarios featuring probands with variable personal and family histories of cancer. Our results show that the majority of participating GCs have counseled patients for their health-related commercial test results; 94% have encountered patient DTC-GT reports (3 per year), and 69% have encountered patient TPI data (2 per year). Most participating GCs would recommend confirmatory clinical-grade testing for probands with a positive 23andMe BRCA1/2 result (77/80, 96%). However, there was strong variability between the type of recommended testing. Approximately 20% recommended single-site analysis, 11%-14% recommended the three Ashkenazi Jewish BRCA1/2 founder mutations, 4% recommended BRCA1/2 testing, and 61%-64% recommended multi-gene panel testing. The most commonly recommended panels were split between a breast and gynecological cancer-focused panel and a broad pan-cancer panel. The majority of participants (98%-100%) would also recommend confirmatory testing for patients with positive TPI data for BRCA1/2. Similarly, results were mixed between those who recommended targeted, single-site analysis (10%-15%) compared to a multi-gene panel (72%-83%). These data show that while most GCs were uniform in their practice of recommending confirmatory testing, they are mixed in their approach to the specific type of testing they would select. These results may help inform counseling approaches and consensus for this expanding group of patients.

Perceptions of provider's epistemic authority in response to variant of uncertain significance-related recommendations.

Uncertain genetic information such as variants of uncertain significance (VUS) is often encountered by patients in clinical cancer genetic testing. Although healthcare providers facilitate patient's understanding of VUS-associated empirical risk and its medical implications, patients' understanding and perceptions of risk often differ and may be based on subjective evaluations such as their perception of provider's epistemic authority (EA). This study examines the hypothesis that individuals attribute greater EA to genetic counselors (GCs) (compared to gastrointestinal oncologists) and to providers who recommend more active VUS-related recommendations (compared to inactive). In a factorial experiment, 652 adult participants recruited on Amazon Mechanical Turk were block-randomized to read one of 10 different types of VUS-related scenarios in the context of colon cancer (5 recommendation types × 2 provider types). GCs were attributed higher EA than gastrointestinal oncologists (p = <.001). Active recommendations (comprehensive, check back, wrong) were attributed lower EA (M = 3.67, SD = 0.79) compared to the inactive (stand by, disregard) (M = 3.89, SD = 0.67) (p-value = <.001). The wrong recommendation was attributed lowest EA compared to the four correct recommendations (mean difference = -0.34, -0.45, -0.35, and -0.44, respectively; p = .002), which, when dropped from the analysis, showed no difference between the correct active and inactive recommendations (3.78 vs. 3.89, p = .095). The higher EA attributed to GCs is encouraging and possibly explained by increased public awareness of the genetic counseling profession. The lack of difference in EA attributed to various correct, yet incomplete forms of VUS-related recommendation indicates that individuals may be unaware of and thus completely rely on providers for complex medical topics like VUS. Communicating VUS-related uncertainty warrants caution and further research to elucidate best practices and outcomes.

Somatic mismatch repair testing in evaluation of Lynch syndrome: The gap between preferred and current practices.

Lynch syndrome (LS) is a hereditary cancer predisposition syndrome primarily defined by increased risk for colorectal and uterine cancers. Individuals with germline pathogenic variants in the mismatch repair (MMR) genes (MLH1, MSH2/EPCAM, MSH6, and PMS2) are diagnosed with LS and recommended high-risk screening protocols to increase prevention and early detection of LS-related cancers. Tumor testing can help identify those at high risk for LS, but sometimes creates uncertainty with discordant screening and germline results, or unexplained mismatch repair deficiency (UMMRD). Somatic testing for MMR genes may help resolve UMMRD, potentially clarifying LS status and modifying cancer surveillance. However, guidelines for such testing are currently limited. This survey of cancer genetic counselors (GCs) aimed to examine current versus preferred ordering practices and interpretation of somatic MMR testing results in LS evaluation. Two hundred eligible GCs practicing in the United States and Canada were recruited from the National Society of Genetic Counselors. Participants answered questions regarding ordering practices, barriers to somatic MMR testing, theoretical scenarios, and desire for further guidelines. Statistical analysis was performed using chi-square, Fisher's exact, and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests, while themes were identified from free-text responses. Most respondents did not include somatic MMR testing in the LS work-up, despite three-quarters reporting they were 'somewhat comfortable' or 'extremely comfortable' with interpreting these results. Approximately half of participants indicated interest in ordering concurrent somatic MMR and germline testing for each of the four theoretical scenarios. Over three-quarters of individuals reported barriers to ordering somatic MMR testing, with cost and coordinating tissue samples most commonly cited. The frequently reported laboratory- and insurance-related barriers may contribute to the gap between preferred and current ordering practices for somatic MMR testing. Nearly all respondents endorsed additional guidelines for this testing, which could reduce barriers and inform screening recommendations for patients with UMMRD and their family members.

Patients with unexplained mismatch repair deficiency are interested in updated genetic testing.

BACKGROUND: Individuals who have colorectal or endometrial cancers displaying loss of immunohistochemical staining of one or more mismatch repair proteins without an identifiable causative germline pathogenic variant have unexplained mismatch repair deficiency (UMMRD). Comprehensive germline genetic testing for Lynch syndrome (LS) includes sequencing and deletion/duplication analysis of MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2, deletion analysis of EPCAM, and MSH2 inversion analysis. Updated genetic testing to include elements of comprehensive LS testing not previously completed could further clarify LS status in individuals with UMMRD, allowing for tailored screening guidelines for affected individuals and their family members. However, patient understanding of the potential impact of updated genetic testing for LS is unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the interest in and perceived impact of updated genetic testing among individuals with UMMRD at a tertiary academic center. METHODS: A survey evaluating interest in and perceived impact of updated genetic testing was mailed to 98 potential participants. Electronic health record review was completed for all individuals meeting eligibility criteria. Thirty-one individuals responded to the survey. RESULTS: Results indicate this population is highly interested in updated genetic testing with the perceived impact being primarily for family members to have appropriate genetic testing and screening. Electronic health record review indicates that clinicians have an evolving understanding of causes of UMMRD, representing a potential change in assessment of cancer risk. CONCLUSIONS: Updated risk assessment and genetic counseling with a discussion of the benefits and limitations of germline and somatic genetic testing, is essential as the understanding of UMMRD and genetic testing recommendations for this population evolve.

Detection of Pathogenic Germline Variants Among Patients With Advanced Colorectal Cancer Undergoing Tumor Genomic Profiling for Precision Medicine.

BACKGROUND: Genomic profiling of colorectal cancer aims to identify actionable somatic mutations but can also discover incidental germline findings. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to report the detection of pathogenic germline variants that confer heritable cancer predisposition. DESIGN: This was a retrospective study. SETTINGS: The study was conducted at a tertiary-referral institution. PATIENTS: Between 2012 and 2015, 1000 patients with advanced cancer underwent targeted exome sequencing of a 202-gene panel. The subgroup of 151 patients with advanced colorectal cancer who underwent matched tumor-normal (blood) sequencing formed our study cohort. INTERVENTIONS: Germline variants in 46 genes associated with hereditary cancer predisposition were classified according to a defined algorithm based on in silico predictions of pathogenicity. Patients with presumed pathogenic variants were examined for type of mutation, as well as clinical, pedigree, and clinical genetic testing data. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We measured detection of pathogenic germline variants. RESULTS: A total of 1910 distinct germline variants were observed in 151 patients. After filtering, 15 pathogenic germline variants (9.9%) were found in 15 patients, arising from 9 genes of varying penetrance for colorectal cancer (APC (n = 2; 13%), ATM (n = 1; 6%), BRCA1 (n = 2; 13%), CDH1 (n = 2; 13%), CHEK2 (n = 4; 27%), MSH2 (n = 1; 7%), MSH6 (n = 1; 7%), NF2 (n = 1; 7%), and TP53 (n = 1; 7%)). Patients with pathogenic variants were diagnosed at a younger age than those without (median, 45 vs 52 y; p = 0.03). Of the 15 patients, 7 patients (46.7%) with variants in low/moderate- penetrant genes for colorectal cancer would likely have not been tested based on clinical and pedigree criteria, where 2 harbored clinically actionable variants (CDH1 and NF2, 28.5% of 7). LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by its small sample size and advanced-stage patients. CONCLUSIONS: Tumor-normal sequencing can incidentally discover clinically unsuspected germline variants that confer cancer predisposition in 9.9% of patients with advanced colorectal cancer. Precision medicine should integrate clinical cancer genetics to inform and interpret the actionability of germline variants and to provide follow-up care to mutation carriers. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A906.

Universal Point of Care Testing for Lynch Syndrome in Patients with Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Patients with Lynch syndrome are at risk for upper tract urothelial carcinoma. We sought to identify the incidence and most reliable means of point of care screening for Lynch syndrome in patients with upper tract urothelial carcinoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 115 consecutive patients with upper tract urothelial carcinoma without a history of Lynch syndrome were universally screened during followup from January 2013 through July 2016. We evaluated patient and family history using AMS (Amsterdam criteria) I and II, and tumor immunohistochemistry for mismatch repair proteins and microsatellite instability. Patients who were positive for AMS I/II, microsatellite instability or immunohistochemistry were classified as potentially having Lynch syndrome and referred for clinical genetic analysis and counseling. Patients with known Lynch syndrome served as positive controls. RESULTS: Of the 115 patients 16 (13.9%) screened positive for potential Lynch syndrome. Of these patients 7.0% met AMS II criteria, 11.3% had loss of at least 1 mismatch repair protein and 6.0% had high microsatellite instability. All 16 patients were referred for germline testing, 9 completed genetic analysis and counseling, and 6 were confirmed to have Lynch syndrome. All 7 patients with upper tract urothelial carcinoma who had a known history of Lynch syndrome were positive for AMS II criteria and at least a single mismatch repair protein loss while 5 of 6 had high microsatellite instability. CONCLUSIONS: We identified 13.9% of upper tract urothelial carcinoma cases as potential Lynch syndrome and 5.2% as confirmed Lynch syndrome at the point of care. These findings have important implications for universal screening of upper tract urothelial carcinoma, representing one of the highest rates of undiagnosed genetic disease in a urological cancer.

Frameshift mutational target gene analysis identifies similarities and differences in constitutional mismatch repair-deficiency and Lynch syndrome.

Mismatch-repair deficient (MMR-D) malignancies include Lynch Syndrome (LS), which is secondary to germline mutations in one of the MMR genes, and the rare childhood-form of constitutional mismatch repair-deficiency (CMMR-D); caused by bi-allelic MMR gene mutations. A hallmark of LS-associated cancers is microsatellite instability (MSI), characterized by coding frameshift mutations (cFSM) in target genes. By contrast, tumors arising in CMMR-D patients are thought to display a somatic mutation pattern differing from LS. This study has the main goal to identify cFSM in MSI target genes relevant in CMMR-D and to compare the spectrum of common somatic mutations, including alterations in DNA polymerases POLE and D1 between LS and CMMR-D. CMMR-D-associated tumors harbored more somatic mutations compared to LS cases, especially in the TP53 gene and in POLE and POLD1, where novel mutations were additionally identified. Strikingly, MSI in classical mononucleotide markers BAT40 and CAT25 was frequent in CMMR-D cases. MSI-target gene analysis revealed mutations in CMMR-D-associated tumors, some of them known to be frequently hit in LS, such as RNaseT2, HT001, and TGFßR2. Our results imply a general role for these cFSM as potential new drivers of MMR-D tumorigenesis.

Is it all Lynch syndrome?: An assessment of family history in individuals with mismatch repair-deficient tumors.

PURPOSE: Mismatch repair-deficient (MMRD) colorectal cancer (CRC) and endometrial cancer (EC) may be suggestive of Lynch syndrome (LS). LS can be confirmed only by positive germ-line testing. It is unclear if individuals with MMRD tumors but no identifiable cause (MMRD+/germ-line-) have LS. Because LS is hereditary, individuals with LS are expected to have family histories of LS-related tumors. Our study compared the family histories of MMRD+/germ-line- CRC and/or EC patients with LS CRC and/or EC patients. METHODS: A total of 253 individuals with an MMRD CRC or EC from one institution were included for analysis in one of four groups: LS; MMRD+/germ-line-; MMRD tumor with variant of uncertain significance (MMRD+/VUS); and sporadic MSI-H (MMRD tumor with MLH1 promoter hypermethylation or BRAF mutation). Family histories were analyzed utilizing MMRpro and PREMM1,2,6. Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to compare family history scores. RESULTS: MMRD+/germ-line- individuals had significantly lower median family history scores (MMRpro = 8.1, PREMM1,2,6 = 7.3) than did LS individuals (MMRpro = 89.8, PREMM1,2,6 = 26.1, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: MMRD+/germ-line- individuals have less suggestive family histories of LS than individuals with LS. These results imply that MMRD+/germ-line- individuals may not all have LS. This finding highlights the need to determine other causes of MMRD tumors so that these patients and their families can be accurately counseled regarding screening and management.Genet Med 17 6, 476-484.

Lynch Syndrome: A Primer for Urologists and Panel Recommendations.

PURPOSE: Lynch syndrome, also known as hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer, is a common genetic disease. The predisposition of patients with Lynch syndrome to urological cancer, particularly upper tract urothelial carcinoma, is underappreciated. Urologists may be involved in several aspects of care involving Lynch syndrome, including identifying undiagnosed patients, surveillance of those with established Lynch syndrome or screening family members, in addition to treating patients with Lynch syndrome in whom upper tract urothelial carcinoma develops. We sought to increase awareness in the urological community about Lynch syndrome and provide some guidance where little currently exists. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement we reviewed the available published literature and guidelines from 1998 to 2014 on Lynch syndrome and its association with upper tract urothelial carcinoma. Recommendations based on the literature and the consensus of expert opinion are provided. RESULTS: No randomized or prospective study has been done to evaluate Lynch syndrome in the setting of urological cancer. All data were based on retrospective studies. Lynch syndrome is an autosomal dominant genetic disease caused by germline mutations in 4 mismatch repair genes, leading to the accumulation of DNA errors in microsatellite regions. Upper tract urothelial carcinoma develops in up to 28% of patients with known Lynch syndrome. The diagnosis of Lynch syndrome is established by clinical criteria, tumor tissue testing and genetic evaluation. Urologists should suspect Lynch syndrome when a patient with upper tract urothelial carcinoma presents before age 60 years or meets the 3-2-1 rule. Screening patients with Lynch syndrome for upper tract urothelial carcinoma presents a particular challenge. While no ideal screening test exists, at a minimum routine urinalysis is recommended using the American Urological Association guideline of 3 or more red blood cells per high power field as a trigger for further assessment. Upper tract urothelial carcinoma associated with Lynch syndrome presents at a younger age than sporadic upper tract urothelial carcinoma. It shows a higher proportion of ureteral cancer with a female preponderance and a possible predisposition to bilaterality. CONCLUSIONS: Lynch syndrome is a common genetic disease that is an underappreciated cause of upper tract urothelial carcinoma and possibly other urological cancers. Optimal screening for upper tract urothelial carcinoma in this population is unclear. Further study is needed to identify the best screening test and interval of testing. Urologists should consider routine tissue testing of de novo upper tract urothelial carcinoma tissue in individuals at risk.

Patient-reported disease knowledge and educational needs in Lynch syndrome: findings of an interactive multidisciplinary patient conference.

BACKGROUND: Patients with Lynch Syndrome, the most common hereditary colorectal cancer syndrome, benefit from genetic education and family counseling regarding diagnostic testing and cancer surveillance/prevention recommendations. Although genetic counseling is currently the most common venue where such education and counseling takes place, little is known about the level of disease knowledge and education needs as directly reported by patients and families with Lynch Syndrome. Furthermore, experiences with forums for larger-scale knowledge transfer have been limited in the current literature. METHODS: We conducted a one-day interactive multidisciplinary patient conference, designed to complement individual genetic counseling for updating disease knowledge, supportive networking and needs assessment among Lynch Syndrome patients and their family members. The patient conference was designed utilizing the conceptual framework of action research. Paired pre- and post-conference surveys were administered to 44 conference participants anonymously to assess patient-reported disease knowledge and education needs. RESULTS: A multidisciplinary team of expert providers utilized a variety of educational formats during the one-day conference. Four main focus areas were: genetic testing, surveillance/prevention, living with Lynch Syndrome, and update on research. Thirty-two participants (73%) completed the pre-conference, and 28 (64%) participants completed the post-conference surveys. Nineteen respondents were affected and the remaining were unaffected. The scores of the disease-knowledge items significantly increased from 84% pre- to 92% post-conference (p = 0.012). Patients reported a high level of satisfaction and identified further knowledge needs in nutrition (71%), surveillance/prevention options (71%), support groups (36%), cancer risk assessment (32%), active role in medical care (32%), and research opportunities (5%). CONCLUSION: Our experience with a dedicated patient education conference focused on Lynch Syndrome demonstrated that such an educational format is effective for updating or reinforcing disease knowledge, for identifying patient-reported unmet educational needs, as well as for peer-support.

Germline Testing Identifies Pathogenic/Likely Pathogenic Variants in Patients with Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors.

Ten percent of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNET) are related to inherited syndromes (MEN1, MEN4, VHL, NF1, and TSC). Growing evidence suggests that clinically sporadic pNETs can also harbor germline pathogenic variants. In this study, we report the prevalence of pathologic/likely pathologic (P/LP) germline variants in a high-risk cohort and an unselected cohort. We collected clinical data of patients with pNETs seen at MD Anderson Cancer Center and Johns Hopkins Hospital. The high-risk cohort included (n = 132) patients seen at MD Anderson Cancer Center who underwent germline testing for high-risk criteria (early onset, personal or family history of cancer, and syndromic features) between 2013 and 2019. The unselected cohort included (n = 106) patients seen at Johns Hopkins Hospital who underwent germline testing following their diagnosis of pNETs between 2020 and 2022. In the high-risk cohort (n = 132), 33% (n = 44) had P/LP variants. The majority of the patients had P/LP variants in MEN1 56% (n = 25), followed by DNA repair pathways 18% (n = 8), and 7% (n = 3) in MSH2 (Lynch syndrome). Patients with P/LP were younger (45 vs. 50 years; P = 0.002). In the unselected cohort (n = 106), 21% (n = 22) had P/LP. The majority were noted in DNA repair pathways 40% (n = 9) and MEN1 36% (n = 8). Multifocal tumors correlated with the presence of P/LP (P = 0.0035). MEN1 germline P/LP variants correlated with younger age (40 vs. 56 years; P = 0.0012), presence of multifocal tumors (P < 0.0001), and World Health Organization grade 1 histology (P = 0.0078). P/LP variants are prevalent in patients with clinically sporadic pNET irrespective of high-risk features. The findings support upfront universal germline testing in all patients with pNET. Prevention Relevance: Here, we present germline data from the largest reported cohort of patients with pNET (n = 238), comprising both a high-risk cohort and an unselected cohort. In both cohorts, we identify a high number of P/LPs, including those in the DNA repair pathway. Our findings support universal germline testing in patients with pNET.

New-onset diabetes is a predictive risk factor for pancreatic lesions in high-risk individuals: An observational cohort study.

Background and Objectives: Pancreatic cancer (PC) is the third cause of cancer-related deaths. Early detection and interception of premalignant pancreatic lesions represent a promising strategy to improve outcomes. We evaluated risk factors of focal pancreatic lesions (FPLs) in asymptomatic individuals at hereditary high risk for PC. Methods: This is an observational single-institution cohort study conducted over a period of 5 years. Surveillance was performed through imaging studies (EUS or magnetic resonance imaging/magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography) and serum biomarkers. We collected demographic characteristics and used univariate and multivariate logistic regression models to evaluate associations between potential risk factors and odd ratios (ORs) for FPL development. Results: A total of 205 patients completed baseline screening. Patients were followed up to 53 months. We detected FPL in 37 patients (18%) at baseline; 2 patients had lesions progression during follow-up period, 1 of them to PC. Furthermore, 13 patients developed new FPLs during the follow-up period. Univariate and multivariate analyses revealed that new-onset diabetes (NOD) is strongly associated with the presence of FPL (OR, 10.94 [95% confidence interval, 3.01-51.79; P < 0.001]; OR, 9.98 [95% confidence interval, 2.15-46.33; P = 0.003]). Follow-up data analysis revealed that NOD is also predictive of lesions progression or development of new lesions during screening (26.7% vs. 2.6%; P = 0.005). Conclusions: In a PC high-risk cohort, NOD is significantly associated with presence of FPL at baseline and predictive of lesions progression or new lesions during surveillance.

Colorectal surveillance outcomes from an institutional longitudinal cohort of lynch syndrome carriers.

Objective: Lynch Syndrome (LS) carriers have a significantly increased risk of developing colorectal cancer (CRC) during their lifetimes. Further stratification of this patient population may help in identifying additional risk factors that predispose to colorectal carcinogenesis. In most LS patients CRC may arise from adenomas, although an alternative non-polypoid carcinogenesis pathway has been proposed for PMS2 carriers. Using data from our institutional LS cohort, our aim was to describe our current colorectal screening outcomes with a focus on the incidence of adenomas in the context of different MMR genotypes and patient demographics such as gender, race, and ethnicity. Design: We collected demographics, genetic, colonoscopy, and pathology results from a total of 163 LS carriers who obtained regular screening care at MD Anderson Cancer Center. Data were extracted from the electronic health records into a REDCap database for analysis. Logistic regressions were performed to measure the association between MMR variants and the likelihood of adenomas, advanced adenomas, and CRC. Then, we analyzed the cumulative incidences of these outcomes for the first 36 months following enrollment using Kaplan-Meier incidence curves, and Cox proportional hazard regressions. Results: On multivariate analysis, age (≥45 years old) was associated with an increased risk of developing adenomas (P=0.034). Patients with a prior or active cancer status were less likely to develop adenomas (P=0.015), despite of the lack of association between surgical history with this outcome (P=0.868). We found no statistically significant difference in likelihood of adenoma development between MLH1 and MSH2/EPCAM, MSH6, and PMS2 carriers. Moreover, we observed no statistically significant difference in the likelihood of advanced adenomas or CRC for any measured covariates. On Cox proportional hazard, compared to MLH1 carriers, the incidence of adenomas was highest among MSH2/EPCAM carriers during for the first 36-months of follow-up (P<0.001). We observed a non-statistically significant trend for Hispanics having a higher and earlier cumulative incidence of adenomas compared to non-Hispanics (P=0.073). No MMR carrier was more likely to develop advanced adenomas. No difference in the incidence of CRC by MMR gene (P=0.198). Conclusion: Screening recommendations for CRC in LS patients should be based on specific MMR variants and should also be tailored to consider patient demographics.

The Evolving Paradigm of Germline Testing in Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma and Implications for Clinical Practice.

Identification of deleterious germline mutations in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) patients can have therapeutic implications for the patients and result in cascade testing and prevention in their relatives. Universal testing for germline mutations is now considered standard of care in patients with PDAC, regardless of family history, personal history, or age. Here, we highlight the commonly identified germline mutations in PDAC patients as well as the impact of multigene panel testing. We further discuss therapeutic implications of germline testing on the index cases, and the impact of cascade testing on cancer early detection and prevention in relatives.