Low prevalence of gastric intestinal metaplasia and Helicobacter pylori on surveillance upper endoscopy in Lynch syndrome.

Lynch syndrome (LS) increases the risk of numerous different cancers including gastric cancer. While some current guidelines recommend empiric gastric biopsies be performed during upper gastrointestinal cancer surveillance in Lynch syndrome (LS), the yield of these biopsies and the prevalence of gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM) and Helicobacter pylori (HP) in LS remains unknown. Herein we analyze 165 consecutive individuals with LS who underwent upper endoscopic surveillance with biopsies of the gastric antrum and body being performed universally in all individuals. Of the study cohort, 6.7% of universally biopsied individuals with LS had GIM and/or HP (5.5% GIM, 3.6% HP). Biopsies of the gastric body did not increase rates of GIM/HP identification compared to antral biopsies alone. GIM was detected on subsequent surveillance in 2.2% of individuals without prior GIM, which may represent either newly developed GIM or GIM that was missed on a prior upper endoscopy due to sampling error. These findings support inclusion of at least baseline gastric antrum biopsies as a routine component of all standard surveillance upper endoscopies performed in LS.

Development of an Electronic Health Record-Based Clinical Decision Support Tool for Patients With Lynch Syndrome.

PURPOSE: To develop an electronic health record (EHR)-based clinical decision support (CDS) tool to promote guideline-recommended cancer risk management among patients with Lynch syndrome (LS), an inherited cancer syndrome that confers an increased risk of colorectal and other cancer types. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study to determine the baseline prevalence and predictors of guideline-recommended colonic surveillance and annual genetics program visits among patients with LS. Multivariable log-binomial regressions estimated prevalence ratios (PRs) of cancer risk management adherence by baseline sociodemographic and clinical characteristics. These analyses provided rationale for the development of an EHR-based CDS tool to support patients and clinicians with LS-related endoscopic surveillance and annual genetics program visits. The CDS leverages an EHR platform linking discrete genetic data to LS Genomic Indicators, in turn driving downstream clinician- and patient-facing CDS. RESULTS: Among 323 patients with LS, cross-sectional adherence to colonic surveillance and annual genetics program visits was 69.3% and 55.4%, respectively. Patients with recent electronic patient portal use were more likely to be adherent to colonic surveillance (PR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.11 to 2.52). Patients more recently diagnosed with LS were more likely to be adherent to annual genetics program visits (PR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.76 for 2-4 years; PR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.75 for ≥4 compared with <2 years). Our EHR-based CDS tool is now active for 421 patients with LS throughout our health system. CONCLUSION: We have successfully developed an EHR-based CDS tool to promote guideline-recommended cancer risk management among patients with LS.

Uptake and outcomes of small intestinal and urinary tract cancer surveillance in Lynch syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Lynch syndrome (LS) is a hereditary cancer predisposition syndrome associated with increased risk of multiple cancers. While colorectal cancer surveillance decreases mortality in LS and is recommended by guidelines, there is lack of evidence for the efficacy of surveillance for extra-colonic cancers associated with LS, including small intestinal cancer (SIC) and urinary tract cancer (UTC). Given the limited evidence, guidelines do not consistently recommend surveillance for SIC and UTC, and it remains unclear how often individuals will choose to undergo and follow through with extra-colonic surveillance recommendations. AIM: To study factors associated with SIC and UTC surveillance uptake and outcomes in LS. METHODS: This is an IRB-approved retrospective analysis of individuals with LS seen at a tertiary care referral center. Included individuals had a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant in MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2, or EPCAM, or were a confirmed obligate carrier, and had at least one documented visit to our center. Information regarding SIC and UTC surveillance was captured for each individual, and detailed personal and family history was obtained for individuals who had an initial LS management visit in our center's dedicated high-risk LS clinic between January 1, 2017 and October 29, 2020. During these initial management visits, all patients had in-depth discussions of SIC and UTC surveillance with 1 of 3 providers experienced in LS management to promote informed decision-making about whether to pursue SIC and/or UTC surveillance. Statistical analysis using Pearson's chi-squared test and Wilcoxon rank-sum test was completed to understand the factors associated with pursuit and completion of SIC and UTC surveillance, and a P value below 0.05 was deemed statistically significant. RESULTS: Of 317 individuals with LS, 86 (27%) underwent a total of 105 SIC surveillance examinations, with 5 leading to additional work-up and no SICs diagnosed. Additionally, 99 (31%) patients underwent a total of 303 UTC surveillance examinations, with 19 requiring further evaluation and 1 UTC identified. Of 155 individuals who had an initial LS management visit between January 1, 2017 and October 29, 2020, 63 (41%) chose to undergo SIC surveillance and 58 (37%) chose to undergo UTC surveillance. However, only 26 (41%) and 32 (55%) of those who initially chose to undergo SIC or UTC surveillance, respectively, successfully completed their surveillance examinations. Individuals with a pathogenic variant in MSH2 or EPCAM were more likely to initially choose to undergo SIC surveillance (P = 0.034), and older individuals were more likely to complete SIC surveillance (P = 0.007). Choosing to pursue UTC surveillance was more frequent among older individuals (P = 0.018), and females more frequently completed UTC surveillance (P = 0.002). Personal history of cancer and family history of SIC or UTC were not significantly associated with electing nor completing surveillance. Lastly, the provider discussing SIC/UTC surveillance was significantly associated with subsequent surveillance choices. CONCLUSION: Pursuing and completing SIC/UTC surveillance in LS is influenced by several factors, however broad incorporation in LS management is likely unhelpful due to low yield and frequent false positive results.

EUS-based Pancreatic Cancer Surveillance in BRCA1/BRCA2/PALB2/ATM Carriers Without a Family History of Pancreatic Cancer.

Carriers of a pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) BRCA1/BRCA2/ATM/PALB2 variant are at increased risk of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), yet current guidelines recommend surveillance only for those with a family history of PDAC. We aimed to investigate outcomes of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-based PDAC surveillance in BRCA1/BRCA2/ATM/PALB2 carriers without a family history of PDAC. We performed a retrospective analysis of all P/LP BRCA1/BRCA2/ATM/PALB2 carriers who underwent EUS at a tertiary care center. Of 194 P/LP BRCA1/BRCA2/ATM/PALB2 carriers who underwent EUS, 64 (33%) had no family history of PDAC and had at least 1 EUS for PDAC surveillance. These individuals underwent 143 total EUSs, were predominantly female (72%), and BRCA2 carriers (73%), with the majority having a personal history of cancer other than PDAC (67%). The median age at time of first EUS was 62 years [interquartile range (IQR), 53-67 years] and a median of 2 EUSs (IQR 1-3) were performed per patient, with a median of 3 years (IQR 2-4.5 years) between the first and last EUS for those with more than 1 EUS. Pancreatic abnormalities were detected in 44%, including cysts in 27%, and incidental luminal abnormalities in 41%. Eight percent developed a new pancreatic mass or cyst during surveillance, 2 individuals developed PDAC, and no serious complications resulted from surveillance. After discussion of the risks, limitations, and potential benefits, PDAC surveillance can be considered in BRCA1/BRCA2/ATM/PALB2 carriers without a family history of PDAC; however, the effectiveness of PDAC surveillance in this population requires further study. PREVENTION RELEVANCE: BRCA1/BRCA2/ATM/PALB2 carriers have increased pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) risk, yet are typically not eligible for PDAC surveillance in the absence of PDAC family history. Herein we describe outcomes of PDAC surveillance in BRCA1/BRCA2/ATM/PALB2 carriers without a family history of PDAC, showing that PDAC surveillance can be considered in this high-risk group.