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.

OBJECTIVE: Metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa) patients with BRCA mutations benefit from targeted treatments (e.g., olaparib). Additionally, family members of affected patients have increased risk of hereditary cancers and benefit from early detection and prevention. International guidelines recommend genetic testing in mPCa, however, the value for money of testing mPCa patients and cascade testing of blood-related family members has not been assessed. In this context we evaluated the cost-effectiveness of germline BRCA testing in mPCa patients followed by cascade testing of first-degree relatives (FDRs) of mutation carriers.
METHODS: We conducted a cost-utility analysis of germline BRCA testing using two scenarios: 1) testing mPCa patients only; 2) testing mPCa patients and first-degree relatives (FDRs) of those who test positive. A semi-Markov multi-health-state transition model was constructed using a lifetime time horizon. The analyses were performed from an Australian payer perspective. Decision uncertainty was characterized using probabilistic analyses.
RESULTS: Compared with no testing, BRCA testing in mPCa was associated with an incremental cost of AU$3,731 and a gain of 0.014 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of AU$265,942/QALY. Extending testing to FDRs of variant positive patients resulted in an ICER of AU$16,392/QALY. Probability of cost-effectiveness at a willingness-to-pay of AU$75,000/QALY was 0% in the standalone mPCa analysis and 100% in the cascade testing analysis.
CONCLUSIONS: BRCA testing when performed as a standalone strategy in patients with mPCa may not be cost-effective but demonstrates significant value for money after the inclusion of cascade testing of FDRs of mutation carriers.

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.

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.

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.

暂无摘要。

BACKGROUND: The application of precision medicine in clinical practice implies a thorough evaluation of actionable genomic alterations to streamline therapeutic decision making. Comprehensive genomic profiling of tumor via next-generation sequencing (NGS) represents a great opportunity but also several challenges. During the 2023 San Raffaele Retreat, we aimed to provide expert recommendations for the optimal use of NGS in urothelial carcinoma (UC).
METHODS: A modified Delphi method was utilized, involving a panel of 12 experts in UC from European and United States centers, including oncologists, urologists, pathologists, and translational scientists. An initial survey, conducted before the meeting, delivered 15 statements to the panel. A consensus was defined when ≥70% agreement was reached for each statement. Statements not meeting the consensus threshold were discussed during the meeting.
RESULTS: Nine of the 15 statements covering patient selection, cancer characteristics, and type of NGS assay, achieved a consensus during the survey. The remaining six statements addressing the optimal timing of NGS use, the ideal source of tumor biospecimen for NGS testing, and the subsequent need to evaluate the germline nature of certain genomic findings were discussed during the meeting, leading to unanimous agreement at the end of the conference.
CONCLUSIONS: This consensus-building effort addressed multiple unanswered questions regarding the use of NGS in UC. The opinion of experts was in favor of broader use of NGS. In a setting where recommendations/guidelines may be limited, these insights may aid clinicians to provide informed counselling and raise the bar of precision and personalized therapy.

Genetic testing is an integral part of the workup of metastatic prostate cancer, in part, because the results can have a profound impact on the subsequent management of this disease. There are now several Food & Drug Administration (FDA) approved therapeutics available for patients with prostate cancer and certain genetic abnormalities - most notably, mutations in DNA damage repair (DDR) pathways such mismatch repair (MMR) and homologous recombination repair (HRR). In this review of the current literature, we discuss the indications for somatic and germline testing, the genetic changes of particular clinical relevance, the associated therapeutic options, and the clinical data supporting their use. We also highlight select trials-in-progress and future directions for the field.

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.