OBJECTIVE: Germline testing in pediatric cancer presents opportunities and challenges. Understanding family perspectives, experiences, and preferences will optimize integration into routine care.
METHODS: Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, we searched 4 databases for studies exploring perspectives, experiences, and preferences of parents/caregivers and/or patients regarding germline testing of children with cancer. Qualitative and quantitative data were extracted, organized, and summarized by research question and themes.
RESULTS: We identified 2286 unique articles, of which 24 were included. Interest in and uptake of testing was high. Families were motivated by altruism and a desire for inheritance/causation information. Testing barriers included psychological concerns, timing of the testing approach if offered at diagnosis or in a high-risk cancer setting and privacy/discrimination. Testing experiences highlighted challenges yet also positive impacts, with results providing psychological relief and informing proactive decision making. Timing preferences varied; however, allowing time to adjust to a new diagnosis was a common theme. Most wanted to receive as many germline sequencing-related results as possible.
CONCLUSIONS: Findings underscore the importance of integrating germline analyses into pediatric cancer care with flexibility and support for families facing challenges. Where possible, consent should be provided at a time that suits each family\'s situation with access to information aligning with their needs and preferences.
UNASSIGNED: CRD42023444890.

暂无摘要。

OBJECTIVE: Subependymal giant cell astrocytoma (SEGA) is a WHO grade I pediatric glioma arising in 5-15% of patients with tuberous sclerosis (TSC). Rare cases of isolated SEGA without TSC have been described. The etiology, genetic mechanisms, natural history, and response to treatment of these lesions are currently unknown. We describe two such cases of isolated SEGA with follow-up.
METHODS: Retrospective review was performed at a single institution to describe the clinical course of pathology-confirmed SEGA in patients with germline testing negative for TSC mutations.
RESULTS: Two cases of isolated SEGA were identified. Genetic analysis of the tumor specimen was available for one, which revealed an 18 base pair deletion in TSC1. Both cases were managed with surgical resection, one with preoperative embolization. In spite of a gross total resection, one patient experienced recurrence after three years. Treatment with an mTOR inhibitor led to a significant interval reduction of the mass on follow-up MRI. The patient tolerated the medication well for 6 years and is now off of treatment for 2 years with a stable lesion.
CONCLUSIONS: Cases of SEGA outside of the context of TSC are exceedingly rare, with only 48 cases previously described. The genetic mechanisms and treatment response of these lesions are poorly understood. To date, these lesions appear to respond well to mTOR inhibitors and may behave similarly to SEGAs associated with TSC. However, given that experience is extremely limited, these cases should be followed long term to better understand their natural history and treatment response.

Germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations (gBRCAm) can inform pancreatic cancer (PC) risk and treatment but most of the available information is derived from white patients. The ethnic and geographic variability of gBRCAm prevalence and of germline BRCA (gBRCA) testing uptake in PC globally is largely unknown.
We carried out a systematic review and prevalence meta-analysis of gBRCA testing and gBRCAm prevalence in PC patients stratified by ethnicity. The main outcome was the distribution of gBRCA testing uptake across diverse populations worldwide. Secondary outcomes included: geographic distribution of gBRCA testing uptake, temporal analysis of gBRCA testing uptake in ethnic groups, and pooled proportion of gBRCAm stratified by ethnicity. The study is listed under PROSPERO registration number #CRD42022311769.
A total of 51 studies with 16 621 patients were included. Twelve of the studies (23.5%) enrolled white patients only, 10 Asians only (19.6%), and 29 (56.9%) included mixed populations. The pooled prevalence of white, Asian, African American, and Hispanic patients tested per study was 88.7%, 34.8%, 3.6%, and 5.2%, respectively. The majority of included studies were from high-income countries (HICs) (64; 91.2%). Temporal analysis showed a significant increase only in white and Asians patients tested from 2000 to present (P < 0.001). The pooled prevalence of gBRCAm was: 3.3% in white, 1.7% in Asian, and negligible (<0.3%) in African American and Hispanic patients.
Data on gBRCA testing and gBRCAm in PC derive mostly from white patients and from HICs. This limits the interpretation of gBRCAm for treating PC across diverse populations and implies substantial global and racial disparities in access to BRCA testing in PC.

UNASSIGNED: Targeted germline testing is recommended for those with or at risk of breast, ovarian, or colorectal cancer. The affordability of genetic sequencing has improved over the past decade, therefore the cost-effectiveness of testing for these cancers is worthy of reassessment.
UNASSIGNED: To systematically review economic evaluations on cost-effectiveness of germline testing in breast, ovarian, or colorectal cancer.
UNASSIGNED: A search of PubMed and Embase databases for cost-effectiveness studies on germline testing in breast, ovarian, or colorectal cancer, published between 1999 and May 2022. Synthesis of methodology, cost-effectiveness, and reporting (CHEERS checklist) was performed.
UNASSIGNED: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs; in 2021-adjusted US$) for germline testing versus the standard care option in hereditary breast or ovarian cancer (HBOC) across target settings were as follows: (1) population-wide testing: 344-2.5 million/QALY; (2) women with high-risk: dominant = 78,118/QALY, 8,337-59,708/LYG; (3) existing breast or ovarian cancer: 3,012-72,566/QALY, 39,835/LYG; and (4) metastatic breast cancer: 158,630/QALY. Likewise, ICERs of germline testing for colorectal cancer across settings were: (1) population-wide testing: 132,200/QALY, 1.1 million/LYG; (2) people with high-risk: 32,322-76,750/QALY, dominant = 353/LYG; and (3) patients with existing colorectal cancer: dominant = 54,122/QALY, 98,790-6.3 million/LYG. Key areas of underreporting were the inclusion of a health economic analysis plan (100% of HBOC and colorectal studies), engagement of patients and stakeholders (95.4% of HBOC, 100% of colorectal studies) and measurement of outcomes (18.2% HBOC, 38.9% of colorectal studies).
UNASSIGNED: Germline testing for HBOC was likely to be cost-effective across most settings, except when used as a co-dependent technology with the PARP inhibitor, olaparib in metastatic breast cancer. In colorectal cancer studies, testing was cost-effective in those with high-risk, but inconclusive in other settings. Cost-effectiveness was sensitive to the prevalence of tested variants, cost of testing, uptake, and benefits of prophylactic measures. Policy advice on germline testing should emphasize the importance of these factors in their recommendations.
Breast, ovarian, prostate, and colorectal cancers are among the top causes of cancer related deaths. A substantial proportion of people with these cancers have inherited mutations. The identification of these gene abnormalities could provide people with opportunities to utilize preventive risk reduction surgeries or undertake frequent routine testing for these cancers. However, genetic testing requires healthcare resources and money. Previous reviews on the cost-effectiveness of genetic testing in familial cancers have concluded that targeted screening i.e., selective assessment of people at high-risk could justify the costs of testing. Our evaluation of economic studies in breast and ovarian cancer, however, suggests that genetic testing is cost-effective across a wide variety of situations starting from the screening of all healthy women above 30 years to the testing of women with existing breast or ovarian cancer. Testing in metastatic breast cancer to inform treatment with Olaparib, a drug known to selectively improve survival in people with genetic mutations, was the sole exception where testing was not cost-effective. Contrary to findings for breast or ovarian cancer, testing for colorectal cancer was cost-effective in people with high-risk i.e., family history but inconclusive in other situations. Evidence on the cost-effectiveness of testing in prostate cancer is lacking and as a result we were not able to provide advice in this cancer group.

Ovarian cancer (OC) is the least survivable gynecological malignancy and presents late. Five-year survival for OC is around 45% increasing the need for innovative treatments. Checkpoint inhibitors have shown significant clinical efficacy in mismatch repair deficient (MMRd) cancers and could be a powerful treatment in OC. However, their application in OC is limited due to the lack of data on the prevalence of MMRd. The aim of our study was to conduct a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis to provide an accurate estimate of the prevalence of MMRd in OC. We followed PRISMA guidelines throughout. Studies were identified by electronic searches of Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL and Web of Science followed by citation searching. Studies not written in English were excluded. All studies were reviewed by at least two independent reviewers. Proportions of test positivity were calculated by random and fixed-effects meta-analysis models. I2 score was used to assess heterogeneity across studies. In total 54 studies were included with 17 532 analyzed for MMRd. The overall proportions of MMRd by immunohistochemistry and microsatellite instability analysis were 6.7% and 10.4%, respectively. MMRd was reported in all histotypes of epithelial OC but was most common in endometrioid OC. We estimate that on average 46.7% (95% CI: 28.8-65.4) of ovarian carcinomas showing MMRd by IHC had a germline path_MMR variant identified. OC in those with Lynch syndrome seems to present at an earlier age and stage. Studies however were generally of low quality and there was a high degree of heterogeneity. A significant minority (up to 16%) of OC displays MMRd and, therefore, could be amenable to checkpoint inhibition therapy. However, the current literature base is of limited quality and therefore high-quality prospective studies exploring MMRd in OC with the use of multimodal testing are required. In addition, trials researching efficacy of checkpoint inhibition in MMRd OC are needed.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and PRO measures (PROMs) are real-world evidence that can help capture patient experiences and perspectives regarding a clinical intervention such as genetic testing.
OBJECTIVE: To identify and capture methods and qualitative PRO themes among studies reporting PROs following genetic testing for FH, breast and ovarian cancer syndrome, and Lynch syndrome.
METHODS: A systematic review was conducted via PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Yale University\'s TRIP Medical Databases on articles published by April 2021.
RESULTS: We identified 24 studies published between 1996 and 2021 representing 4279 participants that reported PROs following genetic testing for FH, breast and ovarian cancer syndrome, and Lynch syndrome. Studies collected and reported PROs from validated PROM instruments (n = 12; 50%), validated surveys (n = 7; 26%), and interviews (n = 10; 42%). PRO themes ranged across all collection methods (e.g., psychological, knowledge, coping and satisfaction, concern about stigma/discrimination, etc.).
CONCLUSIONS: Important gaps identified include (1) most studies (n = 18; 75%) reported PROs following genetic testing for breast and ovarian cancer, and (2) populations reporting PROs overall were largely of White/Caucasian/Northern European/Anglo-Saxon descent. We offer recommendations and describe real-world implications for the field moving forward.