Recurrent BRCA2 exon 3 deletion in Assyrian families.

We identified six patients from five families with a recurrent mutation: NM_000059.3 (BRCA2) exon 3 deletion. All families self-identified as Assyrian. Assyrians are an ethnoreligious population of ancient Mesopotamia, now mostly living in modern day Iraq, Syria, Turkey and Iran. They are historically a socially isolated population with intermarriage within their community, living as a religious and language minority in mostly Muslim countries. The probands of each family presented with a classic BRCA2-associated cancer including early-onset breast cancer, epithelial serous ovarian cancer, male breast cancer and/or high-grade prostate cancer, and family history that was also significant for BRCA2-associated cancer. BRCA2 exon 3 deletion is classified as pathogenic and has been previously described in the literature, but it has not been described as a founder mutation in a particular population. We characterise this recurrent BRCA2 pathogenic variant in five Assyrian families in a single centre cohort.

Family health beliefs and cascade genetic testing in Asian families with hereditary cancer risk: "Okay, now what?"

The limited literature on Asian family communication of hereditary cancer risk and cascade genetic testing for pathogenic variants (PVs) in BRCA1 and BRCA2 has reported that Asian patients have selective communication of test results and lower cascade testing rates. To better understand the factors that impact communication and cascade testing in Asian families, we conducted an in-depth qualitative study guided by the Health Belief Model. Participants with heterozygous PVs in ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, or PALB2, who identified their family's origins to an Asian country, were recruited from the Stanford Cancer Genetics Research Database in October-November 2021. Utilizing a constructivist approach, we conducted sixteen semi-structured interviews around family communication and cascade genetic testing. The research team analyzed the transcript data using a reflexive thematic approach. Extensive discussions between the research team resulted in three primary themes presented in this paper: (1) the role of family health beliefs in cascade genetic testing, (2) changes in communication as a result of genetic testing, and (3) genetics providers' role in supporting family discussions on cascade genetic testing. Certain health beliefs, such as perceived susceptibility to cancer and self-efficacy to take action, were co-created by family members and these shared beliefs influenced decisions about genetic testing, family communication, and family support during the cascade genetic testing process. Participants shared strategies for how genetics providers can prepare Asian patients for more effective conversations with relatives and better address potential testing barriers by tailoring information and providing anticipatory guidance. This study represents an important contribution to the literature about cascade testing among an underrepresented group. Shared family health beliefs about genetic testing may be particularly relevant for this community and these findings can inform strategies to increase cascade genetic testing in Asian families.

Clinical implications of conflicting variant interpretations in the cancer genetics clinic.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to describe the clinical impact of commercial laboratories issuing conflicting classifications of genetic variants. METHODS: Results from 2000 patients undergoing a multigene hereditary cancer panel by a single laboratory were analyzed. Clinically significant discrepancies between the laboratory-provided test reports and other major commercial laboratories were identified, including differences between pathogenic/likely pathogenic and variant of uncertain significance (VUS) classifications, via review of ClinVar archives. For patients carrying a VUS, clinical documentation was assessed for evidence of provider awareness of the conflict. RESULTS: Fifty of 975 (5.1%) patients with non-negative results carried a variant with a clinically significant conflict, 19 with a pathogenic/likely pathogenic variant reported in APC or MUTYH, and 31 with a VUS reported in CDKN2A, CHEK2, MLH1, MSH2, MUTYH, RAD51C, or TP53. Only 10 of 28 (36%) patients with a VUS with a clinically significant conflict had a documented discussion by a provider about the conflict. Discrepant counseling strategies were used for different patients with the same variant. Among patients with a CDKN2A variant or a monoallelic MUTYH variant, providers were significantly more likely to make recommendations based on the laboratory-reported classification. CONCLUSION: Our findings highlight the frequency of variant interpretation discrepancies and importance of clinician awareness. Guidance is needed on managing patients with discrepant variants to support accurate risk assessment.

Germline Genetic Testing After Cancer Diagnosis.

Importance: Germline genetic testing is recommended by practice guidelines for patients diagnosed with cancer to enable genetically targeted treatment and identify relatives who may benefit from personalized cancer screening and prevention. Objective: To describe the prevalence of germline genetic testing among patients diagnosed with cancer in California and Georgia between 2013 and 2019. Design, Setting, and Participants: Observational study including patients aged 20 years or older who had been diagnosed with any type of cancer between January 1, 2013, and March 31, 2019, that was reported to statewide Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries in California and Georgia. These patients were linked to genetic testing results from 4 laboratories that performed most germline testing for California and Georgia. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was germline genetic testing within 2 years of a cancer diagnosis. Testing trends were analyzed with logistic regression modeling. The results of sequencing each gene, including variants associated with increased cancer risk (pathogenic results) and variants whose cancer risk association was unknown (uncertain results), were evaluated. The genes were categorized according to their primary cancer association, including breast or ovarian, gastrointestinal, and other, and whether practice guidelines recommended germline testing. Results: Among 1 369 602 patients diagnosed with cancer between 2013 and 2019 in California and Georgia, 93 052 (6.8%) underwent germline testing through March 31, 2021. The proportion of patients tested varied by cancer type: male breast (50%), ovarian (38.6%), female breast (26%), multiple (7.5%), endometrial (6.4%), pancreatic (5.6%), colorectal (5.6%), prostate (1.1%), and lung (0.3%). In a logistic regression model, compared with the 31% (95% CI, 30%-31%) of non-Hispanic White patients with male breast cancer, female breast cancer, or ovarian cancer who underwent testing, patients of other races and ethnicities underwent testing less often: 22% (95% CI, 21%-22%) of Asian patients, 25% (95% CI, 24%-25%) of Black patients, and 23% (95% CI, 23%-23%) of Hispanic patients (P < .001 using the χ2 test). Of all pathogenic results, 67.5% to 94.9% of variants were identified in genes for which practice guidelines recommend testing and 68.3% to 83.8% of variants were identified in genes associated with the diagnosed cancer type. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients diagnosed with cancer in California and Georgia between 2013 and 2019, only 6.8% underwent germline genetic testing. Compared with non-Hispanic White patients, rates of testing were lower among Asian, Black, and Hispanic patients.

Patterns of germline and somatic testing after universal tumor screening for Lynch syndrome: A clinical practice survey of active members of the Collaborative Group of the Americas on Inherited Gastrointestinal Cancer.

Clinical guidelines recommend universal tumor screening (UTS) of colorectal and endometrial cancers for Lynch syndrome (LS). There are limited guidelines for how to integrate germline testing and somatic tumor testing after a mismatch repair deficient (dMMR) tumor is identified. We sought to characterize current practice patterns and barriers to preferred practice among clinical providers in high-risk cancer programs. A clinical practice survey was sent to 423 active members of the Collaborative Group of the Americas on Inherited Gastrointestinal Cancer (CGA-IGC) with a follow-up survey sent to 103 clinician responders. The survey outlined clinical vignettes and asked respondents their preferred next test. The survey intended to assess: (1) the role of patient age and family history in risk assessment and (2) barriers to preferred genetic testing. Genetic test options included targeted germline testing based on dMMR expression, germline testing for LS, germline testing with a multigene cancer panel including LS, or paired tumor/germline testing including LS. In October 2020, 117 of 423 (28%) members completed the initial survey including 103 (88%) currently active clinicians. In April 2021, a follow-up survey was sent to active clinicians, with 45 (44%) completing this second survey. After selecting their preferred next germline or paired tumor/germline tumor test based on the clinical vignette, 39% of respondents reported wanting to make a different choice for the initial genetic test without any testing barriers. The proportion of respondents choosing a different initial genetic test was dependent on the proband's age at diagnosis and specified family history. The reported barriers included patient's lack of insurance coverage, patient unable/unwilling to self-pay for proposed testing, and inadequate tumor tissue. Responders reported insurance, financial constraints, and limited tumor tissue as influencing preferred genetic testing in high-risk clinics, thus resulting in possible under-diagnosis of LS and impacting potential surveillance and cascade testing of at-risk relatives.

Psychosocial outcomes following germline multigene panel testing in an ethnically and economically diverse cohort of patients.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the psychological outcomes of germline multigene panel testing, particularly among diverse patients and those with moderate-risk pathogenic variants (PVs). METHODS: Study participants (N = 1264) were counseled and tested with a 25- or 28-gene panel and completed a 3-month postresult survey including the Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (MICRA). RESULTS: The mean age was 52 years, 80% were female, and 70% had cancer; 45% were non-Hispanic White, 37% were Hispanic, 10% were Asian, 3% were Black, and 5% had another race/ethnicity. Approximately 28% had a high school education or less, and 23% were non-English-speaking. The genetic test results were as follows: 7% had a high-risk PV, 6% had a moderate-risk PV, 35% had a variant of uncertain significance (VUS), and 52% were negative. Most participants (92%) had a total MICRA score ≤ 38, which corresponded to a mean response of "never," "rarely," or only "sometimes" reacting negatively to results. A multivariate analysis found that mean total MICRA scores were significantly higher (more uncertainty/distress) among high- and moderate-risk PV carriers (29.7 and 24.8, respectively) than those with a VUS or negative results (17.4 and 16.1, respectively). Having cancer or less education was associated with a significantly higher total MICRA score; race/ethnicity was not associated with the total MICRA score. High- and moderate-risk PV carriers did not differ significantly from one another in the total MICRA score, uncertainty, distress, or positive experiences. CONCLUSIONS: In a diverse population undergoing genetic counseling and multigene panel testing for hereditary cancer risk, the psychological response corresponded to test results and showed low distress and uncertainty. Further studies are needed to assess patient understanding and subsequent cancer screening among patients from diverse backgrounds. LAY SUMMARY: Multigene panel tests for hereditary cancer have become widespread despite concerns about adverse psychological reactions among carriers of moderate-risk pathogenic variants (mutations) and among carriers of variants of uncertain significance. This large study of an ethnically and economically diverse cohort of patients undergoing panel testing found that 92% "never," "rarely," or only "sometimes" reacted negatively to results. Somewhat higher uncertainty and distress were identified among carriers of high- and moderate-risk pathogenic variants, and lower levels were identified among those with a variant of uncertain significance or a negative result. Although the psychological response corresponded to risk, reactions to testing were favorable, regardless of results.

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Colorectal, Version 1.2021.

Identifying individuals with hereditary syndromes allows for timely cancer surveillance, opportunities for risk reduction, and syndrome-specific management. Establishing criteria for hereditary cancer risk assessment allows for the identification of individuals who are carriers of pathogenic genetic variants. The NCCN Guidelines for Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Colorectal provides recommendations for the assessment and management of patients at risk for or diagnosed with high-risk colorectal cancer syndromes. The NCCN Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Colorectal panel meets annually to evaluate and update their recommendations based on their clinical expertise and new scientific data. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP)/attenuated familial adenomatous polyposis (AFAP) syndrome and considerations for management of duodenal neoplasia.

Genetic Counseling, Testing, and Family Communication Into Survivorship After Diagnosis of Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: To examine receipt of genetic testing and communication with relatives about results into survivorship after diagnosis of breast cancer. METHODS: Women age 20-79 years diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer in 2014-2015 and reported to the Georgia and Los Angeles County SEER registries were surveyed approximately 7 months and 6 years after diagnosis (n = 1,412). We asked about genetic counseling, testing, and communication with relatives about results. We categorized women into indications for testing on the basis of clinical guidelines at the time of diagnosis and at the time of the follow-up survey (FUPs). RESULTS: A total of 47.4% had indications for genetic testing at any time: 28.0% at baseline and an additional 19.4% at the time of the FUPs (only); 71.9% (95% CI, 67.4 to 76.4) of those with a baseline indication reported genetic testing versus 53.3% (95% CI, 47.3 to 59.2) with an indication at FUPs only and 35.0% (95% CI, 31.6 to 38.4) with no indication (P < .001). There were no significant racial or ethnic differences in receipt of testing, controlling for age and clinical indications (P = .239); results for genetic counseling were similar. Only 3.4% of survivors had direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTCt) for cancer. Testers who reported a pathogenic variant (n = 62) were much more likely to have talked to most or all their first-degree adult relatives about genetic testing than those with a variant of unknown significance (n = 49) or a negative finding (n = 419): 62.7% versus 38.8% and 38.0%, respectively (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Many women with indications for genetic counseling and testing into survivorship do not receive it. But those tested reach out to family members on the basis of the clinical relevance of their results. Very few patients obtained DTCt, which suggests that these tests do not substitute for clinical testing in breast cancer survivors.

Family communication of cancer genetic test results in an ethnically diverse population: a qualitative exploration of more than 200 patients.

Previous research on family communication of cancer genetic test results has primarily focused on non-Hispanic White patients with high-risk pathogenic variants (PV). There are limited data on patient communication of moderate-risk PVs, variants of uncertain significance (VUS), and negative results. This qualitative study examined communication of positive, negative, and VUS hereditary cancer multi-gene panel (MGP) results in an ethnically and socioeconomically diverse population. As part of a multicenter, prospective cohort study of 2000 patients who underwent MGP testing at three hospitals in California, USA, free-text written survey responses to the question: "Feel free to share any thoughts or experiences with discussing genetic test results with others" were collected from participant questionnaires administered at 3 and 12-months post results disclosure. Content and thematic analyses were performed using a theory-driven analysis, Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), on 256 responses from 214 respondents. Respondents with high perceived utility of sharing genetic test results often reported positive attitudes towards sharing test results and direct encouragement for genetic testing of others. Respondents with high self-efficacy in the sharing process were likely to report high perceived utility of sharing, whereas patients with low self-efficacy more often had VUS results and were more likely to report uncertainty about sharing. Consistent with TPB, our findings suggest that clinician reinforcement of the utility of genetic testing may increase intent for patients to communicate genetic information. Our findings suggest that clinicians should focus on strategies to improve patient understanding of VUS results.

Cascade Genetic Risk Education and Testing in Families With Hereditary Cancer Syndromes: A Pilot Study.

PURPOSE: Cascade genetic risk evaluation in families with hereditary cancer can reduce the burden of disease but the rate of germline genetic testing in relatives of patients at risk is low. METHODS: We identified all 277 women diagnosed with breast cancer in Georgia in 2017 who linked to a clinically actionable germline pathogenic variant through a Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registry-variant linkage initiative. We surveyed them, and then invited eligible respondents to an online platform hosted by a navigator that offered cancer genetic risk education and germline genetic testing to untested relatives. We randomly assigned patient-family clusters at the time of the patient enrollment offer to free versus $50 (USD) test cost. Patients invited relatives to join the study through personalized e-mail. Enrolled relatives received online cancer genetic education and the opportunity to order clinical germline genetic testing through the platform. The primary outcome was the number of relatives who ordered genetic testing. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-five of 277 patients completed surveys (45.2%). Most respondents were eligible for the trial offer (113 of 125; 90.4%). In the free testing arm, 20 of 56 eligible patients participated (35.7% of eligible respondents) and they invited 28 relatives: 12 relatives enrolled and 10 ordered testing. In the $50 (USD) arm, 16 of 57 eligible patients participated (28.1%) and they invited 38 relatives: 18 relatives enrolled and 17 ordered testing. CONCLUSION: Cascade genetic testing in families with hereditary cancer syndromes accrued through a population-based cancer registry can be achieved through an online platform that offers genetic risk education and low-cost testing to relatives. A modest charge did not appear to influence the percentage of participating patients, numbers of participating relatives, and numbers of relatives who received genetic testing.

Exploring Stakeholders' Perspectives on Implementing Universal Germline Testing for Colorectal Cancer: Findings From a Clinical Practice Survey.

PURPOSE: New guidelines recommend considering germline genetic testing for all patients with colorectal cancer (CRC). However, there is a lack of data on stakeholders' perspectives on the advantages and barriers of implementing universal germline testing (UGT). This study assessed the perspectives of members of the Collaborative Group of the Americas on Inherited Gastrointestinal Cancer (CGA-IGC) regarding the implementation of UGT for patients with CRC, including readiness, logistics, and barriers. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was sent to 317 active members of CGA-IGC. The survey included sections on demographics, clinical practice specialty, established institutional practices for testing, and questions pertaining to support of and barriers to implementing UGT for patients with CRC. RESULTS: Eighty CGA-IGC members (25%) participated, including 42 genetic counselors (53%) and 14 gastroenterologists (18%). Forty-seven (59%) reported an academic medical center as their primary work setting, and most participants (56%) had more than 10 years of clinical practice. Although most participants (73%) supported UGT, 54% indicated that changes in practice would be required before adopting UGT, and 39% indicated that these changes would be challenging to implement. There was support for both genetics and nongenetics providers to order genetic testing, and a majority (57%) supported a standardized multigene panel rather than a customized gene panel. Key barriers to UGT implementation included limited genetics knowledge among nongenetics providers, time-consuming processes for obtaining consent, ordering tests, disclosing results, and lack of insurance coverage. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates wide support among hereditary GI cancer experts for implementation of UGT for patients with CRC. However, alternative service delivery models using nongenetics providers should be considered to address the logistical barriers to UGT implementation, particularly the growing demand for genetic testing.

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.

Cancer surveillance for transgender and gender diverse patients with Lynch syndrome: a practice resource of the Collaborative Group of the Americas on Inherited Gastrointestinal Cancer.

Transgender and gender diverse (TGD) populations with hereditary cancer syndromes face unique obstacles to identifying and obtaining appropriate cancer surveillance and risk-reducing procedures. There is a lack of care provider knowledge about TGD health management. Lynch syndrome (LS) is one of the most common hereditary cancer syndromes, affecting an estimated 1 in 279 individuals. There are no clinical guidelines specific for TGD individuals with LS, highlighting a need to improve the quality of care for this population. There is an urgent need for cancer surveillance recommendations for TGD patients. This commentary provides recommendations for cancer surveillance, risk-reducing strategies, and genetic counseling considerations for TGD patients with LS.

Hereditary inflammatory fibroid polyps caused by germline pathogenic variants in PDGFRA: Refining PDGFRA-mutation syndrome.

A 35-year-old Filipino woman presented with epigastric pain and was found to have two large jejunal and ileal inflammatory fibroid polyps (IFPs) and dozens of subcentimeter small bowel submucosal nodules. Targeted exon sequencing of PDGFRA on the resected jejunum IFP identified a variant c.1664A>G that was subsequently confirmed in the germline. Family history was striking for three relatives with confirmed IFPs, including one with small bowel intussusception on five occasions. All relatives with IFPs were confirmed to have the same PDGFRA germline likely pathogenic variant, all were female, and all had IFPs by age 50 years that necessitated surgery. Two obligate carriers were reported to have had a similar phenotype while at least one obligate male carrier had no reported history of IFPs. This is the sixth reported family with a germline PDGFRA pathogenic variant and history of IFPs or gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST). This is the second report of the c.1664A>G likely pathogenic variant in a family that is unrelated to, and of different ethnic origin than, the first family. This second family exhibited a striking history of multiple IFPs without any reported GISTs, suggesting a possible genotype/phenotype association for this variant, and a possible female gender penetrance bias.

Prevalence of Lynch syndrome in women with mismatch repair-deficient ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data on the prevalence of Lynch syndrome (LS) in women with primary ovarian cancer with mismatch repair deficiency (MMR-D) by immunohistochemistry (IHC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three hundred and eight cases of primary ovarian, fallopian, and peritoneal cancer between January 2012 and December 2019 were evaluated for MMR-D by IHC. The incidence of LS in this cohort was evaluated. RESULTS: MMR-D by IHC was identified in 16 of 308 (5.2%) (95% CI: 3.2%-8.3%) primary ovarian-related cancers. Most cases with MMR-D were endometrioid (n = 11, 68.7%); (95% CI: 44.2%-86.1%). MSH2/MSH6 protein loss was detected in eight cases (50.0%); (95% CI: 28.0%-72.0%) and MLH1/PMS2 protein loss was detected in four cases (25.0%); (95% CI: 9.7%-50.0%). MSH6 protein loss was detected in two cases (12.5%); (95% CI: 2.2%-37.3%) and PMS2 protein loss was detected in two cases (12.5%); (95% CI: 2.2%-37.3%). All four cases with MLH1/PMS2 protein loss had MLH1 promotor hypermethylation. All 12 women with ovarian cancer suggestive of LS underwent germline testing and 8 (66.6%); (95% CI: 38.8%-86.5%) were confirmed to have LS. CONCLUSIONS: Most ovarian cancers with somatic MMR-D were confirmed to have LS in this cohort. Germline testing for LS in addition to BRCA1/2 for all women with an epithelial ovarian cancer would be efficient and would approach 100% sensitivity for identifying Lynch syndrome. Utilization of a multigene panel should also be considered, given the additional non-Lynch germline mutation identified in this cohort.

Universal Screening of Gastrointestinal Malignancies for Mismatch Repair Deficiency at Stanford.

BACKGROUND: In light of recent Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of immune checkpoint inhibitors for mismatch repair deficient (dMMR) malignancies, identifying patients with dMMR malignancies has become increasingly important. Although screening for dMMR in colorectal cancer (CRC) is recommended, it is less common for extracolonic gastrointestinal (GI) malignancies. At Stanford Comprehensive Cancer Institute (SCCI), all GI malignancies have been screened for dMMR via immunohistochemistry since January 2016. METHODS: In this study, we conducted a retrospective review of all patients with GI malignancies screened for dMMR between January 2016 and December 2017. Tumor sequencing was performed on cases negative for germline pathogenic variants where tumor material was available. RESULTS: A total of 1425 consecutive GI malignancies were screened for dMMR at SCCI during the study period, and 1374 were included for analysis. dMMR was detected in 7.2% of all GI malignancies. We detected the highest prevalence of dMMR in gastric (15 of 150, 10.0%) followed by colorectal (63 of 694, 9.1%), pancreatic (13 of 244, 5.3%), and gastroesophageal malignancy (6 of 132, 4.5%) patients. Lynch syndrome was the most common etiology for dMMR in colorectal cancer (41.5%), double somatic (confirmed or possible) pathogenic variants the most common etiology in pancreatic cancer (44.4%), and somatic MLH1 hypermethylation the most common etiology in gastric (73.3%) and gastroesophageal cancer (83.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Given the relatively high incidence of dMMR in GI malignancies, we recommend screening all GI malignancies. Our results suggest that although a rare occurrence, double somatic pathogenic variants may be a biologically significant pathway causing dMMR in pancreatic cancer.