Pancreatic cancer, with its alarming rising incidence, is predicted to become the second deadliest type of solid tumor by 2040, highlighting the urgent need for improved diagnostic and treatment strategies. Despite medical advancements, the five-year survival rate for pancreatic cancer remains about 14%, dropping further when metastasized. This review explores the promise of biomarkers for early detection, personalized treatment, and disease monitoring. Molecular classification of pancreatic cancer into subtypes based on genetic mutations, gene expression, and protein markers guides treatment decisions, potentially improving outcomes. A plethora of clinical trials investigating different strategies are currently ongoing. Targeted therapies, among which those against CLAUDIN 18.2 and inhibitors of Claudin 18.1, have shown promise. Next-generation sequencing (NGS) has emerged as a powerful tool for the comprehensive genomic analysis of pancreatic tumors, revealing unique genetic alterations that drive cancer progression. This allows oncologists to tailor therapies to target specific molecular abnormalities. However, challenges remain, including limited awareness and uptake of biomarker-guided therapies. Continued research into the molecular mechanisms of pancreatic cancer is essential for developing more effective treatments and improving patient survival rates.

Pharmacogenetics investigates sequence of genes that affect drug response, enabling personalized medication. This approach reduces drug-induced adverse reactions and improves clinical effectiveness, making it a crucial consideration for personalized medical care. Numerous guidelines, drawn by global consortia and scientific organizations, codify genotype-driven administration for over 120 active substances. As the scientific community acknowledges the benefits of genotype-tailored therapy over traditionally agnostic drug administration, the push for its implementation into Italian healthcare system is gaining momentum. This evolution is influenced by several factors, including the improved access to patient genotypes, the sequencing costs decrease, the growing of large-scale genetic studies, the rising popularity of direct-to-consumer pharmacogenetic tests, and the continuous improvement of pharmacogenetic guidelines. Since EMA (European Medicines Agency) and AIFA (Italian Medicines Agency) provide genotype information on drug leaflet without clear and explicit clinical indications for gene testing, the regulation of pharmacogenetic testing is a pressing matter in Italy. In this manuscript, we have reviewed how to overcome the obstacles in implementing pharmacogenetic testing in the clinical practice of the Italian healthcare system. Our particular emphasis has been on germline testing, given the absence of well-defined national directives in contrast to somatic pharmacogenetics.

Prostate cancer (PCa) is highly heritable, with men of African ancestry at greatest risk and associated lethality. Lack of representation in genomic data means germline testing guidelines exclude for African men. Established that structural variations (SVs) are major contributors to human disease and prostate tumourigenesis, their role is under-appreciated in familial and therapeutic testing. Utilising a clinico-methodologically matched African (n = 113) versus European (n = 57) deep-sequenced PCa resource, we interrogated 42,966 high-quality germline SVs using a best-fit pathogenicity prediction workflow. We identified 15 potentially pathogenic SVs representing 12.4% African and 7.0% European patients, of which 72% and 86% met germline testing standard-of-care recommendations, respectively. Notable African-specific loss-of-function gene candidates include DNA damage repair MLH1 and BARD1 and tumour suppressors FOXP1, WASF1 and RB1. Representing only a fraction of the vast African diaspora, this study raises considerations with respect to the contribution of kilo-to-mega-base rare variants to PCa pathogenicity and African associated disparity.

BACKGROUND: Germline genetic testing is traditionally carried out in patients suspected with hereditary cancer syndrome for enhanced cancer surveillance and/or preventive strategies, but is increasingly carried out for therapeutic indications.
METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of patients who underwent germline genetic testing at our centre to determine the prevalence of actionable pathogenic germline variants (PGV) and their clinical utility.
RESULTS: From 2000 to 2022, 1154 cancer patients underwent germline testing, with the majority (945/1154) tested with multi-gene panels. Four hundred and eleven (35.6%) patients harboured a PGV and 334 (81%) were clinically actionable. BRCA1/2 accounted for 62.3% of actionable mutations, followed by mismatch repair (18%), and other homologous recombination repair (HRR) genes (19.7%). One hundred and fifty-two germline-positive patients have advanced cancers, and 79 received germline-directed therapies (poly ADP ribose polymerase inhibitors = 75; immunotherapy = 4). Median duration of immunotherapy and poly ADP ribose polymerase were 20.5 months (range 5-40 months) and 8 months (range 1-76 months), respectively. Among BRCA/HRR mutation carriers who received platinum-based chemotherapy, pathological complete response rate in the neoadjuvant setting was 53% (n = 17 breast cancers) and objective response rate was >80% in the advanced setting (n = 71).
CONCLUSIONS: One-third of cancer patients tested carried a PGV and ∼80% were clinically actionable. Three-quarters of germline-positive advanced cancer patients received germline-directed therapies in the real world, underscoring the practical utility of germline testing to guide cancer therapeutics.

To identify predictors of referral and completion of germline genetic testing among newly diagnosed ovarian cancer patients, with a focus on geographic social deprivation, oncologist-level practices, and time between diagnosis and completion of testing.
Clinical and sociodemographic data were abstracted from medical records of patients newly diagnosed with ovarian cancer between 2014 and 2019 in the University of North Carolina Health System. Factors associated with referral for genetic counseling, completion of germline testing, and time between diagnosis and test results were identified using multivariable regression.
307/459 (67%) patients were referred for genetic counseling and 285/459 (62%) completed testing. The predicted probability of test completion was 0.83 (95% CI: 0.77-0.88) for patients with a referral compared to 0.27 (95% CI: 0.18-0.35) for patients without a referral. The predicted probability of referral was 0.75 (95% CI: 0.69-0.82) for patients at the 25th percentile of ZIP code-level Social Deprivation Index (SDI) and 0.67 (0.60-0.74) for patients at the 75th percentile of SDI. Referral varied by oncologist, with predicted probabilities ranging from 0.47 (95% CI: 0.32-0.62) to 0.93 (95% CI: 0.85-1.00) across oncologists. The median time between diagnosis and test results was 137 days (IQR: 55-248 days). This interval decreased by a predicted 24.46 days per year (95% CI: 37.75-11.16).
We report relatively high germline testing and a promising trend in time from diagnosis to results, with variation by oncologist and patient factors. Automated referral, remote genetic counseling and sample collection, reduced out-of-pocket costs, and educational interventions should be explored.

UNASSIGNED: Genomic profiling is performed in patients with advanced or metastatic cancer, in order to direct cancer treatment, often sequencing tumor-only, without a matched germline comparator. However, because many of the genes analyzed on tumor profiling overlap with those known to be associated with hereditary cancer predisposition syndromes (HCPS), tumor-only profiling can unknowingly uncover germline pathogenic (P) and likely pathogenic variants (LPV). In this study, we evaluated the number of patients with P/LPVs identified in BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) via tumor-only profiling, then determined the germline testing outcomes for those patients.
UNASSIGNED: A retrospective chart review was performed to identify patients with BRCA1/2 variants on tumor-only genomic profiling, and whether they had germline testing.
UNASSIGNED: This study found that of 2923 patients with 36 tumor types who underwent tumor-only testing, 554 had a variant in BRCA1/2 (19.0%); 119 of the 554 patients (21.5%) had a P/LP BRCA1/2 variant, representing 4.1% of the overall population who underwent genomic profiling. Seventy-three (61.3%) of 119 patients with BRCA1/2 P/LPV on tumor-only testing did not undergo germline testing, 34 (28.6%) had already had germline testing before tumor-only testing, and 12 (10.1%) underwent germline testing after tumor-only testing. Twenty-eight germline BRCA1/2 P/LPVs were detected, 24 in those who had prior germline testing, and 4 among the 12 patients who had germline testing after tumor-only testing.
UNASSIGNED: Tumor-only testing is likely to identify P/LPVs in BRCA1/2. Efforts to improve follow-up germline testing is needed to improve identification of germline BRCA1/2 alterations.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic adenocarcinoma is an aggressive disease and the delivery of comprehensive care to individuals with this cancer is critical to achieve appropriate outcomes. The identification of gaps in care delivery facilitates the design of interventions to optimize care delivery and improve outcomes in this population.
METHODS: AccessHope™ is a growing organization that connects oncology subspecialists with treating providers through contracts with self-insured employers. Data from 94 pancreatic adenocarcinoma cases (August 2019-December 2022) in the AccessHope dataset were used to describe gaps in care delivery.
RESULTS: In all but 6% of cases, the subspecialist provided guideline-concordant recommendations anticipated to improve outcomes. Gaps in care were more pronounced in patients with non-metastatic pancreatic cancer. There was a significant deficiency in germline testing regardless of the stage, with only 59% of cases having completed testing. Only 20% of cases were receiving palliative care or other allied support services. There was no difference in observed care gaps between patients receiving care in the community setting vs. those receiving care in the academic setting.
CONCLUSIONS: There are significant gaps in the care delivered to patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma. A concurrent subspecialist review has the opportunity to identify and address these gaps in a timely manner.

Over the past 20 years, rates of early-onset colorectal cancer (eoCRC), defined as <50 years of age at diagnosis, have increased, with 16-25% associated with a pathogenic germline variant (PGV) resulting in a hereditary cancer syndrome. In the present study, we sought to further characterize PGVs observed in patients with eoCRC. We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients with a history of CRC referred for genetic counseling at Mayo Clinic Rochester between April 2019 and April 2022. Three hundred and three CRC patients were referred to medical genetics, including 124 with a history of eoCRC. Only 84 patients (68%) with eoCRC referred for genetic counseling completed genetic testing, with an average of 48 genes evaluated. PGVs were identified in 27.4% with eoCRC, including 8.3% with Lynch syndrome (LS). Other detected PGVs known to increase the risk of CRC included MUTYH (4.8%), CHEK2 (3.6%), APC, BMPR1A, and TP53 (1.3% each). Among those with aoCRC, 109 patients (61%) completed genetic testing, among which 88% had either a dMMR tumor, personal history of an additional LS malignancy, or family history of LS malignancy, with PGVs detected in 23% of patients. This study reinforces the importance for all patients with CRC, especially those with eoCRC, to undergo germline testing.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of implementing a Nurse Navigator (NN) to improve the rate and timeliness of molecular tumor testing.
METHODS: This is an evaluation of the impact of education sessions, consensus building, and NN implementation for molecular tumor testing in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer. The NNs\' responsibilities included attending tumor boards and ensuring Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) is ordered, reviewed, and coordinated for appropriate patients.
RESULTS: NNs significantly improved NGS testing rates from 35.29% to 77.27%, p = 0.002. Ordering a targeted panel test (TPT) was the most common reason for not ordering NGS in the pre-NN cohort (13/22, 59%). The total turnaround time for testing was reduced after the introduction of NNs from 145.2 days to 42.8 days, p < 0.0001. The post-NN group had a significantly higher rate of actionable mutations identified for the recurrent setting [67.6% versus 20.8% (p = 0.0005)] and a trend towards a higher rate of actionable mutations identified in the frontline setting [41.2% versus 33.3% (p = 0.41)].
CONCLUSIONS: NNs significantly improved somatic tumor testing rates and timeliness for patients with ovarian cancer. Discontinuing TPT in favor of NGS revealed a higher rate of actionable tumor mutations that would have been missed with TPT alone.

For patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer, information regarding hereditary predisposition can influence treatment decisions. From a surgical standpoint, patients with known germline mutations may alter decisions of local therapy to reduce the risk of second breast primaries. This information may also be considered in the choice of adjuvant therapies or eligibility for clinical trials. In recent years, the criteria for the consideration of germline testing in patients with breast cancer has expanded. Additionally, studies have shown a similar prevalence of pathogenic mutations in those patients outside of these traditional criteria, prompting calls for genetic testing for all patients with a history of breast cancer. While data confirms the benefit of counseling by certified genetics professionals, the capacity of genetic counselors may no longer meet the needs of these growing numbers of patients. National societies assert that counseling and testing can be performed by providers with training and experience in genetics. Breast surgeons are well positioned to offer this service, as they receive formal genetics training during their fellowship, manage these patients daily in their practices, and are often the first providers to see patients after their cancer diagnosis.