The Pancreatic Cancer Early Detection (PRECEDE) Study is a Global Effort to Drive Early Detection: Baseline Imaging Findings in High-Risk Individuals.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PC) is a highly lethal malignancy with a survival rate of only 12%. Surveillance is recommended for high-risk individuals (HRIs), but it is not widely adopted. To address this unmet clinical need and drive early diagnosis research, we established the Pancreatic Cancer Early Detection (PRECEDE) Consortium. METHODS: PRECEDE is a multi-institutional international collaboration that has undertaken an observational prospective cohort study. Individuals (aged 18-90 years) are enrolled into 1 of 7 cohorts based on family history and pathogenic germline variant (PGV) status. From April 1, 2020, to November 21, 2022, a total of 3,402 participants were enrolled in 1 of 7 study cohorts, with 1,759 (51.7%) meeting criteria for the highest-risk cohort (Cohort 1). Cohort 1 HRIs underwent germline testing and pancreas imaging by MRI/MR-cholangiopancreatography or endoscopic ultrasound. RESULTS: A total of 1,400 participants in Cohort 1 (79.6%) had completed baseline imaging and were subclassified into 3 groups based on familial PC (FPC; n=670), a PGV and FPC (PGV+/FPC+; n=115), and a PGV with a pedigree that does not meet FPC criteria (PGV+/FPC-; n=615). One HRI was diagnosed with stage IIB PC on study entry, and 35.1% of HRIs harbored pancreatic cysts. Increasing age (odds ratio, 1.05; P<.001) and FPC group assignment (odds ratio, 1.57; P<.001; relative to PGV+/FPC-) were independent predictors of harboring a pancreatic cyst. CONCLUSIONS: PRECEDE provides infrastructure support to increase access to clinical surveillance for HRIs worldwide, while aiming to drive early PC detection advancements through longitudinal standardized clinical data, imaging, and biospecimen captures. Increased cyst prevalence in HRIs with FPC suggests that FPC may infer distinct biological processes. To enable the development of PC surveillance approaches better tailored to risk category, we recommend adoption of subclassification of HRIs into FPC, PGV+/FPC+, and PGV+/FPC- risk groups by surveillance protocols.

Hedgehog pathway inhibitors for locally advanced and metastatic basal cell carcinoma: A real-world single-center retrospective review.

Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is highly curable by surgical excision or radiation. In rare cases, BCC can be locally destructive or difficult to surgically remove. Hedgehog inhibition (HHI) with vismodegib or sonidegib induces a 50-60% response rate. Long-term toxicity includes muscle spasms and weight loss leading to dose decreases. This retrospective chart review also investigates the impact of CoQ10 and calcium supplementation in patients treated with HHI drugs at a single academic medical center from 2012 to 2022. We reviewed the charts of adult patients diagnosed with locally advanced or metastatic BCC treated with vismodegib or sonidegib primarily for progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary objectives included overall survival, BCC-specific survival, time to and reasons for discontinuation, overall response rate, safety and tolerability, use of CoQ10 and calcium supplements, and insurance coverage. Of 55 patients assessable for outcome, 34 (61.8%) had an overall clinical benefit, with 25 (45.4%) having a complete response and 9 (16.3%) a partial response. Stable disease was seen in 14 (25.4%) and 7 (12.7%) progressed. Of the 34 patients who responded to treatment, 9 recurred. Patients who were rechallenged with HHI could respond again. The median overall BCC-specific survival rate at 5 years is 89%. Dose reductions or discontinuations for vismodegib and sonidegib occurred in 59% versus 24% of cases, or 30% versus 9% of cases, respectively. With CoQ10 and calcium supplementation, only 17% required a dose reduction versus 42% without. HHI is highly effective for treating advanced BCC but may require dosing decreases. Sonidegib was better tolerated than vismodegib. CoQ10 and calcium supplementation can effectively prevent muscle spasms.

A single center case series of immune checkpoint inhibitor-induced type 1 diabetes mellitus, patterns of disease onset and long-term clinical outcome.

Background: Type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) is a rare, but serious immune-related adverse event (irAE) of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Our goal was to characterize treatment outcomes associated with ICI-induced T1DM through analysis of clinical, immunological and proteomic data. Methods: This was a single-center case series of patients with solid tumors who received ICIs and subsequently had a new diagnosis of T1DM. ICD codes and C-peptide levels were used to identify patients for chart review to confirm ICI-induced T1DM. Baseline blood specimens were studied for proteomic and immunophenotypic changes. Results: Between 2011 and 2023, 18 of 3744 patients treated at Huntsman Cancer Institute with ICIs were confirmed to have ICI-induced T1DM (0.48%). Eleven of the 18 patients received anti-PD1 monotherapy, 4 received anti-PD1 plus chemotherapy or targeted therapy, and 3 received ipilimumab plus nivolumab. The mean time to onset was 218 days (range 22-418 days). Patients had sudden elevated serum glucose within 2-3 weeks prior to diagnosis. Sixteen (89%) presented with diabetic ketoacidosis. Three of 12 patients had positive T1DM-associated autoantibodies. All patients with T1DM became insulin-dependent through follow-up. At median follow-up of 21.9 months (range 8.4-82.4), no patients in the melanoma group had progressed or died from disease. In the melanoma group, best responses were 2 complete response and 2 partial response while on active treatment; none in the adjuvant group had disease recurrence. Proteomic analysis of baseline blood suggested low inflammatory (IL-6, OSMR) markers and high metabolic (GLO1, DXCR) markers in ICI-induced T1DM cohort. Conclusions: Our case series demonstrates rapid onset and irreversibility of ICI-induced T1DM. Melanoma patients with ICI-induced T1DM display excellent clinical response and survival. Limited proteomic data also suggested a unique proteomic profile. Our study helps clinicians to understand the unique clinical presentation and long-term outcomes of this rare irAE for best clinical management.

Response to high dose ipilimumab plus temozolomide after progression on standard or low dose ipilimumab in advanced melanoma: a retrospective analysis.

Background: Despite advancements in checkpoint inhibitor-based immunotherapy, patients with advanced melanoma who have progressed on standard dose ipilimumab (Ipi) + nivolumab continue to have poor prognosis. Several studies support a dose-response activity of Ipi, and one promising combination is Ipi 10mg/kg (Ipi10) + temozolomide (TMZ). Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort analysis of patients with advanced melanoma treated with Ipi10+TMZ in the immunotherapy refractory/resistant setting (n = 6), using similar patients treated with Ipi3+TMZ (n = 6) as comparison. Molecular profiling by whole exome sequencing (WES) and RNA-seq of tumors harvested through one responder's treatment was performed. Results: With a median follow up of 119 days, patients treated with Ipi10+TMZ had statistically significant longer median progression free survival of 144.5 days (range 27-219) vs 44 (26-75) in Ipi3+TMZ, p=0.04, and a trend for longer median overall survival of 154.5 days (27-537) vs 89.5 (26-548). All patients in the Ipi10 cohort had progressed on prior Ipi+Nivo. WES revealed only 12 shared somatic mutations including BRAF V600E. RNA-seq showed enrichment of inflammatory signatures, including interferon responses in metastatic lesions after standard dose Ipi + nivo and Ipi10 + TMZ compared to the primary tumor, and downregulated negative immune regulators including Wnt and TGFb signaling. Conclusion: Ipi10+TMZ demonstrated efficacy including dramatic responses in patients with advanced melanoma refractory to prior Ipi + anti-PD1, even with CNS metastases. Molecular data suggest a potential threshold of Ipi dose for activation of sufficient anti-tumor immune response, and higher dose Ipi is required for some patients.

Current chemoprevention approaches in Lynch syndrome and Familial adenomatous polyposis: a global clinical practice survey.

Background: International chemoprevention preferences and approaches in Lynch syndrome (LS) and APC-associated polyposis, including Familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) and attenuated FAP (AFAP) have not been previously explored. Aim: To describe current chemoprevention strategies for patients with LS or FAP/AFAP (referred to collectively as FAP) practiced by members of four international hereditary cancer societies through administration of a survey. Results: Ninety-six participants across four hereditary gastrointestinal cancer societies responded to the survey. Most respondents (91%, 87/96) completed information regarding their demographics and practice characteristics relating to hereditary gastrointestinal cancer and chemoprevention clinical practices. Sixty-nine percent (60/87) of respondents offer chemoprevention for FAP and/or LS as a part of their practice. Of the 75% (72/96) of survey respondents who were eligible to answer practice-based clinical vignettes based off of their responses to ten barrier questions regarding chemoprevention, 88% (63/72) of those participants completed at least one case vignette question to further characterize chemoprevention practices in FAP and/or LS. In FAP, 51% (32/63) would offer chemoprevention for rectal polyposis, with sulindac - 300 mg (18%, 10/56) and aspirin (16%, 9/56) being the most frequently selected options. In LS, 93% (55/59) of professionals discuss chemoprevention and 59% (35/59) frequently recommend chemoprevention. Close to half of the respondents (47%, 26/55) would recommend beginning aspirin at time of commencement of the patient's first screening colonoscopy (usually at age 25yrs). Ninety-four percent (47/50) of respondents would consider a patient's diagnosis of LS as an influential factor for aspirin use. There was no consensus on the dose of aspirin (≤100 mg, >100 mg - 325 mg or 600 mg) to offer patients with LS and there was no agreement on how other factors, such as BMI, hypertension, family history of colorectal cancer, and family history of heart disease, would affect the recommendation for aspirin use. Possible harm among older patients (>70 years) was identified as the most common reason to discourage aspirin use. Conclusion: Although chemoprevention is widely discussed and offered to patients with FAP and LS by an international group of hereditary gastrointestinal cancer experts, there is significant heterogeneity in how it is applied in clinical practice.

The economic value of knowing BRCA status: universal BRCA testing for breast cancer prevention.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to estimate the incremental lifetime effects, costs, and net monetary benefit (NMB) of knowing BRCA information by universal genetic testing of all US women without breast cancer turning 40 in a given year, and the cumulative savings or losses of yearly cohort testing over 16 years. We compared two strategies: (1) 'with BRCA information' and (2) 'without BRCA information.' METHODS: Incremental NMB (INMB) was calculated as the monetized benefit per person of knowing BRCA status. The net monetized value (cumulated INMB) of knowing BRCA information was estimated by multiplying the INMB with the eligible population or the year 2020 cohort of US women age 40 and extended for a total of 16 yearly cohorts. RESULTS: Universal testing of the female population at the age of 40 in a given year provided aan INMB of $663/person (payer) and $1,006/person (society).Escalated to the U.S. population of women age 40 , knowing BRCA status resulted in lifetime cumulated INMB of $1.3 billion (payer) and $2.0 billion (society) for the 2020 cohort; and yielded accumulated monetized value of $18.3 billion (payer) and $27.6 billion (society) over 16 yearly cohorts of 40-year-old women. CONCLUSIONS: The universal testing for BRCA status of all US women at age 40 provides compelling short-term and long-term economic value.

The economic value of knowing BRCA status: BRCA testing for optimizing treatment in recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to estimate the incremental lifetime effects, costs, and net monetary benefit (NMB) of knowing BRCA information for recurrent ovarian cancer (ROC) patients in a given year and the cumulative savings of yearly hypothetical cohort testing over 16 years. We compared two strategies: (1) 'with BRCA information' and (2) 'without BRCA information.' METHODS: Incremental NMB (INMB) was calculated as the average net monetized benefit of knowing BRCA status. The net monetized value (cumulative INMB) of knowing BRCA information was estimated by multiplying the INMB with the eligible ROC patients in year 2020 and extended for potential ROC patients over 16 yearly hypothetical cohorts of ROC patients. RESULTS: Knowing BRCA information for ROC patients provided an additional monetized value of $3,528 in (payer) and $3,194 (society). Escalated to all ROC patients in the U.S. and future incidence ROC estimates, knowing BRCA information resulted in a lifetime cumulative INMB of $35.6 million (payer) and $32.2 million (society) for the 2020 cohort; and yielded an accumulated value of $97.3 million (payer) and $88.0 million (society) over 16 yearly hypothetical cohorts of ROC patients. CONCLUSIONS: The economic value of knowing BRCA status of all U.S. ROC patients provides short-term and long-term evidence for optimizing treatment.

Economic value of knowing BRCA status: BRCA testing for prostate cancer prevention and optimal treatment.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to estimate the incremental lifetime effects, costs, and net-monetary-benefit (NMB) of knowing BRCA information by testing of patients with low-risk localized prostate cancer (PCa) in the US and guiding subsequent screening and treatment, and the cumulative savings or losses of yearly cohort testing over 16 years. We compared two strategies: (1)'with BRCA information' and (2)'without BRCA information.' We also estimated the expected value of perfect information. METHODS: The incremental NMB (INMB) quantified the monetized benefit per person of knowing BRCA status. The net-monetized-value of knowing BRCA information was estimated by multiplying the INMB with the eligible population. RESULTS: The INMBs of knowing BRCA information were $43,357 (payer) and $43,487 (society). in payer and societal perspectives, respectively. Escalated to the eligible patients in 2020, knowing BRCA status resulted in net monetized lifetime value of $1.7 billion (payer and society) for the 2020 cohort; and yielded accumulated net-monetized-value of $28.0 billion (payer) and $28.1 billion (society) over 16 yearly cohorts of eligible PCa patients. CONCLUSIONS: The economic value of knowing BRCA status for all low-risk localized PCa patients in the US provides short-term and long-term evidence for BRCA testing to screen early and optimize treatment.

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.

A need to tailor surveillance based on family history: describing a highly penetrant familial paraganglioma kindred with an SDHD pathogenic variant.

Pathogenic variants (PVs) in the SDHD gene increase risk for paragangliomas (PGL)/pheochromocytomas, renal cell carcinomas, and gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Penetrance in individuals with SDHD PVs varies in reported research from 40-70%, and there is limited evidence of specific genotype risks. This study aims to characterize a multi-generational family with SDHD p.Trp43* PVs and potential genotype-phenotype considerations for surveillance. Individuals with a paternally inherited SDHD p.Trp43*(c.129G > A) PV were identified. Genetic, medical and family histories were abstracted, including clinical characteristics, tumor histories, and treatment approaches. Eleven individuals with the SDHD PV in the same kindred were diagnosed with 41 SDHx-related tumors across all family members. Eight individuals developed 27 head and neck PGL of varying origins, and seven individuals developed tumors outside of the head and neck region. Many individuals had multiple tumors, and age of first tumor diagnosis ranged from age 10 to age 45 years old. Individuals with SDHD p.Trp43* variants may have higher risks for SDHx related tumors than other SDHD variants. Prioritizing identification of at-risk individuals and initiating surveillance tailored to family history is recommended given the rate of multiple tumors found in one familial branch of individuals under 18 years old. Individuals with strong family histories of PGL at young ages with this PV will benefit from tailored surveillance recommendations.

Adjuvant crizotinib in high-risk uveal melanoma following definitive therapy.

Introduction: Approximately 40% of patients with uveal melanoma (UM) will develop metastatic disease. Tumors measuring at least 12mm in basal diameter with a class 2 signature, as defined by a widely used gene expression-profiling test, are associated with significantly higher risk of metastasis, with a median time to recurrence of 32 months. No therapy has been shown to reduce this risk. Materials and Methods: This was a single-arm, multicenter study in patients with high-risk UM who received definitive treatment of primary disease and had no evidence of metastasis. Patients were consecutively enrolled to receive 12 four-week cycles of adjuvant crizotinib at a starting dose of 250mg twice daily and were subsequently monitored for 36 months. The primary outcome of this study was to assess recurrence-free survival (RFS) of patients with high-risk UM who received adjuvant crizotinib. Results: 34 patients enrolled and received at least one dose of crizotinib. Two patients were unevaluable due to early withdrawal and loss to follow-up, leaving 32 patients evaluable for efficacy. Eight patients (25%) did not complete the planned 48-week course of treatment due to disease recurrence (n=5) or toxicity (n=3). All patients experienced at least one adverse event (AE), with 11/34 (32%) experiencing a Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) grade 3 or 4 AE. After a median duration of follow up of 47.1 months, 21 patients developed distant recurrent disease. The median RFS was 34.9 months (95% CI (Confidence Interval), 23-55 months), with a 32-month recurrence rate of 50% (95% CI, 33-67%). Analysis of protein contents from peripheral blood extracellular vesicles in a subset of patient samples from baseline, on-treatment, and off-treatment, revealed a change in protein content associated with crizotinib exposure, however without a clear association with disease outcome. Conclusions: The use of adjuvant crizotinib in patients with high-risk UM did not result in improved RFS when compared to historical controls. Analysis of blood extracellular vesicles revealed changes in protein content associated with treatment, raising the possibility of future use as a biomarker. Further investigation of adjuvant treatment options are necessary for this challenging disease.

Clinical Impact of Pathogenic Variants in DNA Damage Repair Genes beyond BRCA1 and BRCA2 in Breast and Ovarian Cancer Patients.

Consensus guidelines for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer include management recommendations for pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants in ATM, CHEK2, PALB2, and other DNA damage repair (DDR) genes beyond BRCA1 or BRCA2. We report on clinical management decisions across three academic medical centers resulting from P/LP findings in DDR genes in breast/ovarian cancer patients. Among 2184 patients, 156 (7.1%) carried a P/LP variant in a DDR gene. Clinical follow-up information was available for 101/156 (64.7%) patients. Genetic test result-based management recommendations were made for 57.8% (n = 59) of patients and for 64.7% (n = 66) of patients' family members. Most recommendations were made for moderate-to-high risk genes and were consistent with guidelines. Sixty-six percent of patients (n = 39/59) implemented recommendations. This study suggests that P/LP variants in DDR genes beyond BRCA1 and BRCA2 can change clinical management recommendations for patients and their family members, facilitate identification of new at-risk carriers, and impact treatment decisions. Additional efforts are needed to improve the implementation rates of genetic-testing-based management recommendations for patients and their family members.

Considerations for Germline Testing in Melanoma: Updates in Behavioral Change and Pancreatic Surveillance for Carriers of CDKN2A Pathogenic Variants.

The largest proportion of hereditary melanoma cases are due to pathogenic variants (PVs) in the CDKN2A/p16 gene, which account for 20%-40% of familial melanomas and confer up to a 30%-70% lifetime risk for melanoma in individuals with these variants. In addition, PVs in the CDKN2A gene also increase risk for pancreatic cancer (~5-24% lifetime risk). Individuals with PVs in the CDKN2A gene also tend to have an earlier onset of cancer. Despite these known risks, uptake of germline testing has been limited in the past, largely due to perceptions of limited benefit for patients. Prevention recommendations have been developed for individuals with CDKN2A PVs as well the providers who care for them. On the patient level, behavioral modifications regarding melanoma prevention such as wearing sunscreen, limiting prolonged sun exposure and practicing general sun safety can help reduce risks. Germline testing can provide motivation for some individuals to adhere to these lifestyle changes. On the provider level, pancreatic cancer surveillance for individuals with CDKN2A PVs has been increasingly endorsed by expert consensus, although the efficacy of these surveillance methods remains under study. This review summarizes the updated surveillance guidelines for individuals with CDKN2A PVs and explores the impact of genetic counseling and testing in influencing behavioral changes in these individuals.

Non-Melanoma Skin Cancers and Other Cutaneous Manifestations in Bone Marrow Failure Syndromes and Rare DNA Repair Disorders.

Although most non-melanoma skin cancers are felt to be sporadic in origin, these tumors do play a role in several cancer predisposition syndromes. The manifestations of skin cancers in these hereditary populations can include diagnosis at extremely early ages and/or multiple primary cancers, as well as tumors at less common sites. Awareness of baseline skin cancer risks for these individuals is important, particularly in the setting of treatments that may compromise the immune system and further increase risk of cutaneous malignancies. Additionally, diagnosis of these disorders and management of non-cutaneous manifestations of these diseases have profound implications for both the patient and their family. This review highlights the current literature on the diagnosis, features, and non-melanoma skin cancer risks associated with lesser-known cancer predisposition syndromes, including bone marrow failure disorders, genomic instability disorders, and base excision repair disorders.

Genetic Evaluation for Hereditary Cancer Syndromes Among African Americans: A Critical Review.

While hereditary cancer syndromes have been described and studied for centuries, the completion of the human genome project fueled accelerated progress in precision medicine due to the introduction of genetic testing in the 1990s, creating avenues for tailored treatments and medical management options. However, genetic testing has not benefited everyone equitably, with nearly all of the published work based on individuals of non-Hispanic White/European ancestry. There remains a gap in knowledge regarding the prevalence, penetrance, and manifestations of common hereditary cancer syndromes in the African-American population due to significant disparities in access and uptake of genetic testing. This review summarizes the available literature on genetic testing for breast, colon, and prostate cancers in the African-American population and explores the disparities in access to genetic testing between non-Hispanic White and African-American patients. This article also addresses the barriers to genetic testing and discrepancies in the uptake of recommendations for hereditary cancer syndromes in the African-American population when compared with non-Hispanic Whites. The review offers practice implications for many healthcare providers and demonstrates gaps in the existing knowledge to be addressed in future studies to help eliminate the persisting health disparities faced by the African-American population.

The State of Melanoma: Emergent Challenges and Opportunities.

Five years ago, the Melanoma Research Foundation (MRF) conducted an assessment of the challenges and opportunities facing the melanoma research community and patients with melanoma. Since then, remarkable progress has been made on both the basic and clinical research fronts. However, the incidence, recurrence, and death rates for melanoma remain unacceptably high and significant challenges remain. Hence, the MRF Scientific Advisory Council and Breakthrough Consortium, a group that includes clinicians and scientists, reconvened to facilitate intensive discussions on thematic areas essential to melanoma researchers and patients alike, prevention, detection, diagnosis, metastatic dormancy and progression, response and resistance to targeted and immune-based therapy, and the clinical consequences of COVID-19 for patients with melanoma and providers. These extensive discussions helped to crystalize our understanding of the challenges and opportunities facing the broader melanoma community today. In this report, we discuss the progress made since the last MRF assessment, comment on what remains to be overcome, and offer recommendations for the best path forward.

Prognostic Gene Expression Profiling in Cutaneous Melanoma: Identifying the Knowledge Gaps and Assessing the Clinical Benefit.

Importance: Use of prognostic gene expression profile (GEP) testing in cutaneous melanoma (CM) is rising despite a lack of endorsement as standard of care. Objective: To develop guidelines within the national Melanoma Prevention Working Group (MPWG) on integration of GEP testing into the management of patients with CM, including (1) review of published data using GEP tests, (2) definition of acceptable performance criteria, (3) current recommendations for use of GEP testing in clinical practice, and (4) considerations for future studies. Evidence Review: The MPWG members and other international melanoma specialists participated in 2 online surveys and then convened a summit meeting. Published data and meeting abstracts from 2015 to 2019 were reviewed. Findings: The MPWG members are optimistic about the future use of prognostic GEP testing to improve risk stratification and enhance clinical decision-making but acknowledge that current utility is limited by test performance in patients with stage I disease. Published studies of GEP testing have not evaluated results in the context of all relevant clinicopathologic factors or as predictors of regional nodal metastasis to replace sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB). The performance of GEP tests has generally been reported for small groups of patients representing particular tumor stages or in aggregate form, such that stage-specific performance cannot be ascertained, and without survival outcomes compared with data from the American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th edition melanoma staging system international database. There are significant challenges to performing clinical trials incorporating GEP testing with SLNB and adjuvant therapy. The MPWG members favor conducting retrospective studies that evaluate multiple GEP testing platforms on fully annotated archived samples before embarking on costly prospective studies and recommend avoiding routine use of GEP testing to direct patient management until prospective studies support their clinical utility. Conclusions and Relevance: More evidence is needed to support using GEP testing to inform recommendations regarding SLNB, intensity of follow-up or imaging surveillance, and postoperative adjuvant therapy. The MPWG recommends further research to assess the validity and clinical applicability of existing and emerging GEP tests. Decisions on performing GEP testing and patient management based on these results should only be made in the context of discussion of testing limitations with the patient or within a multidisciplinary group.

Predictors of risk-reducing surgery intentions following genetic counseling for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer.

Risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM) and salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) are increasingly used to reduce breast and ovarian cancer risk following BRCA1/BRCA2 testing. However, little is known about how genetic counseling influences decisions about these surgeries. Although previous studies have examined intentions prior to counseling, few have examined RRM and RRSO intentions in the critical window between genetic counseling and test result disclosure. Previous research has indicated that intentions at this time point predict subsequent uptake of surgery, suggesting that much decision-making has taken place prior to result disclosure. This period may be a critical time to better understand the drivers of prophylactic surgery intentions. The aim of this study was to examine predictors of RRM and RRSO intentions. We hypothesized that variables from the Health Belief Model would predict intentions, and we also examined the role of affective factors. Participants were 187 women, age 21-75, who received genetic counseling for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. We utilized multiple logistic regression to identify independent predictors of intentions. 49.2% and 61.3% of participants reported intentions for RRM and RRSO, respectively. Variables associated with RRM intentions include: newly diagnosed with breast cancer (OR = 3.63, 95% CI = 1.20-11.04), perceived breast cancer risk (OR = 1.46, 95% CI = 1.17-1.81), perceived pros (OR = 1.79, 95% CI = 1.38-2.32) and cons of RRM (OR = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.65-0.996), and decision conflict (OR = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.66-0.98). Variables associated with RRSO intentions include: proband status (OR = 0.28, 95% CI = 0.09-0.89), perceived pros (OR = 1.35, 95% CI = 1.11-1.63) and cons of RRSO (OR = 0.72, 95% CI = 0.59-0.89), and ambiguity aversion (OR = 0.79, 95% CI = 0.65-0.95). These data provide support for the role of genetic counseling in fostering informed decisions about risk management, and suggest that the role of uncertainty should be explored further.

The association of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations with prostate cancer risk, frequency, and mortality: A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: A prior meta-analysis found no association between BRCA1 mutation and prostate cancer (PCa). Subsequent BRCA2 mutation studies have shown an association with PCa risk and mortality. We conducted a meta-analysis of overall BRCA mutation carriers and in subgroups to (1) estimate PCa risk in BRCA mutation carriers, (2) evaluate the frequency of BRCA mutation carriers in patients with PCa, and (3) compare cancer-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS) among BRCA mutation carriers and noncarriers. METHODS: We searched the PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases. Unadjusted odds ratio (OR), percentage (%), and hazard ratio (HR) were used to calculate pooled estimates for PCa risk, frequency, and survival, respectively. Subgroup analyses by mutation type ( BRCA1 or BRCA2) were conducted for the three objectives. Further subgroup analyses by study design (age-sex-adjusted or crude), ascertainment method (ascertained or inferred genotyping), population (Ashkenazi Jewish or general population), and survival outcomes (CSS or OS) were conducted. The associations were evaluated using random-effects models, in two-sided statistical tests. RESULTS: A total of 8 cohort, 7 case-control, 4 case-series, 28 frequency, and 11 survival studies were included. Being a BRCA mutation carrier ( BRCA1 and/or BRCA2) was associated with a significant increase in PCa risk (OR = 1.90, 95% CI = 1.58-2.29), with BRCA2 mutation being associated with a greater risk of PCa (OR = 2.64, 95% CI = 2.03-3.47) than BRCA1 (OR = 1.35, 95% CI = 1.03-1.76). The frequency of BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers in patients with PCa was 0.9% and 2.2%, respectively. OS (HR = 2.21, 95% CI = 1.64-2.30) and CSS (HR = 2.63, 95% CI = 2.00-3.45) were significantly worse among BRCA2 carriers compared to noncarriers, whereas OS (HR = 0.47, 95% CI = 0.11-1.99) and CSS (HR = 1.07, 95% CI = 0.38-2.96) were statistically not significant when comparing BRCA1 carriers and noncarriers. CONCLUSIONS: There is a 1.90-fold greater risk of PCa in overall BRCA mutation carriers. This elevated PCa risk is attributable mainly to a 2.64-fold greater risk of PCa in BRCA2 carriers compared to a moderate 1.35-fold greater risk in BRCA1 carriers. The frequency of BRCA2 mutations was higher than BRCA1 mutations among patients with PCa. BRCA2 but not BRCA1 mutations were associated with higher PCa mortality. The BRCA mutation may be a clinical factor to stratify high-risk patients and guide clinical strategies for more effective treatments for patients with PCa.