UNASSIGNED: Colorectal cancers (CRCs) from people with biallelic germline likely pathogenic/pathogenic variants in MUTYH or NTHL1 exhibit specific single base substitution (SBS) mutational signatures, namely combined SBS18 and SBS36 (SBS18+SBS36), and SBS30, respectively. The aim was to determine if adenomas from biallelic cases demonstrated these mutational signatures at diagnostic levels.
UNASSIGNED: Whole-exome sequencing of FFPE tissue and matched blood-derived DNA was performed on 9 adenomas and 15 CRCs from 13 biallelic MUTYH cases, on 7 adenomas and 2 CRCs from 5 biallelic NTHL1 cases and on 27 adenomas and 26 CRCs from 46 non-hereditary (sporadic) participants. All samples were assessed for COSMIC v3.2 SBS mutational signatures.
UNASSIGNED: In biallelic MUTYH cases, SBS18+SBS36 signature proportions in adenomas (mean±standard deviation, 65.6%±29.6%) were not significantly different to those observed in CRCs (76.2%±20.5%, p-value=0.37), but were significantly higher compared with non-hereditary adenomas (7.6%±7.0%, p-value=3.4×10-4). Similarly, in biallelic NTHL1 cases, SBS30 signature proportions in adenomas (74.5%±9.4%) were similar to those in CRCs (78.8%±2.4%) but significantly higher compared with non-hereditary adenomas (2.8%±3.6%, p-value=5.1×10-7). Additionally, a compound heterozygote with the c.1187G>A p.(Gly396Asp) pathogenic variant and the c.533G>C p.(Gly178Ala) variant of unknown significance (VUS) in MUTYH demonstrated high levels of SBS18+SBS36 in four adenomas and one CRC, providing evidence for reclassification of the VUS to pathogenic.
UNASSIGNED: SBS18+SBS36 and SBS30 were enriched in adenomas at comparable proportions observed in CRCs from biallelic MUTYH and biallelic NTHL1 cases, respectively. Therefore, testing adenomas may improve the identification of biallelic cases and facilitate variant classification, ultimately enabling opportunities for CRC prevention.

Germline DNA testing using the next-gene-ration sequencing (NGS) technology has become the analytical standard for the diagnostics of hereditary diseases, including cancer. Its increasing use places high demands on correct sample identification, independent confirmation of prioritized variants, and their functional and clinical interpretation. To streamline these processes, we introduced parallel DNA and RNA capture-based NGS using identical capture panel CZECANCA, which is routinely used for DNA analysis of hereditary cancer predisposition. Here, we present the analytical workflow for RNA sample processing and its analytical and diagnostic performance. Parallel DNA/RNA analysis allowed credible sample identification by calculating the kinship coefficient. The RNA capture-based approach enriched transcriptional targets for the majority of clinically relevant cancer predisposition genes to a degree that allowed analysis of the effect of identified DNA variants on mRNA processing. By comparing the panel and whole-exome RNA enrichment, we demonstrated that the tissue-specific gene expression pattern is independent of the capture panel. Moreover, technical replicates confirmed high reproducibility of the tested RNA analysis. We concluded that parallel DNA/RNA NGS using the identical gene panel is a robust and cost-effective diagnostic strategy. In our setting, it allows routine analysis of 48 DNA/RNA pairs using NextSeq 500/550 Mid Output Kit v2.5 (150 cycles) in a single run with sufficient coverage to analyse 226 cancer predisposition and candidate ge-nes. This approach can replace laborious Sanger confirmatory sequencing, increase testing turnaround, reduce analysis costs, and improve interpretation of the impact of variants by analysing their effect on mRNA processing.

One to 3% of gastric cancers are secondary to genetic predisposition, notably hereditary diffuse gastric cancers (HDGC) caused by CDH1 gene mutations. According to French recommendations, in case of CDH1 gene mutation, a prophylactic total gastrectomy should be performed between 20 and 30 years old. This gastrectomy should remove all the gastric mucosa at both extremities (duodenal and esophageal sides). Histopathological examinations of prophylactic total gastrectomies in asymptomatic CDH1-mutated patients reveal microscopic foci of diffuse-type cancer in 90 to 100% of cases. Lymph node involvement and lympho-vascular invasion are extremely rare, justifying the use of a D1-only lymphadenectomy. In the context of prophylaxis, limited lymphadenectomy and the development of minimally invasive oesogastric surgery, the minimally invasive approach might be the preferred approach, in expert centers. Surgical outcomes seem to be similar to those after gastrectomy for cancer. Prophylactic total gastrectomy is the cornerstone of CGDH management, associated with multidisciplinary follow-up and mammary surveillance in women.

Many breast cancer (BC) predisposition genes encode proteins involved in DNA damage repair (DDR). Identification of germline pathogenic va-riants (PV) in DDR genes raises the question whether their presence can influence the treatment outcomes and potential radiation-induced toxicity in their carriers treated by adjuvant radiotherapy, which has not yet been answered conclusively. We retrospectively examined records of 213 BC patients treated by adjuvant radiotherapy, including 39 (18.3 %) BRCA1/2 PV carriers, 25 carriers (11.7 %) of PV in other breast cancer-predisposing genes, and 149 (70 %) non-carriers. Our goal was to examine 5-year disease-free survival (5y DFS) rates among the study groups and determine the impact of radiotherapy-induced lymphopoenia (RIL) on this outcome. While we found no significant difference in 5y DFS between non-carriers and carriers of BRCA mutations (86.4 % vs 78.4 % P = 0.24) or between non-carriers and other studied mutations (86.4 % vs 93.3 %; P = 0.27), respectively, we observed that the entire group of PV carriers had a significantly lower proportion of patients without RIL (P = 0.04) than the non-carriers. In contrast, subsequent analyses indicated a non-significant trend toward an increased 5y DFS in PV carriers with RIL. Our single-centre study indicated that the presence of PV in BC patients has an insignificant impact on DFS but can reduce the risk of RIL associated with adjuvant radiotherapy. It remains unclear whether this may result from the paradoxical activation of anti-tumour immunity in PV carriers with higher lymphocyte consumption resulting from higher immune effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: Lynch syndrome (LS) is not considered part of childhood cancer predisposition syndromes.
METHODS: Analysis of a pediatric osteosarcoma (OS) displayed hypermutation (16.8), alternative lengthening of telomeres (ALT), loss of PMS2 expression in tumor tissue (retained in non-neoplastic cells), PMS2 loss of heterozygosity (LOH), and high-degree of microsatellite instability (MSI) tested by PCR. A heterozygous duplication c.1076dup p.(Leu359Phefs*6) in exon 10 of NM_000535.6:PMS2 was detected by SNV analysis in peripheral blood, confirming diagnosis of LS in the patient. The tumor molecular features suggest LS-associated development of OS. In a second case, whole-genome sequencing identified a heterozygous SNV c.1 A > T p.? in exon 1 of PMS2 in tumor and germline material of a girl with ependymoma. Tumor analysis displayed evidence for ALT and low mutational burden (0.6), PMS2 expression was retained, MSI was low. Multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification identified no additional PMS2 variant and germline MSI testing did not reveal increased gMSI ratios in the patient´s lymphocytes. Thus, CMMRD was most closely excluded and our data do not suggest that ependymoma was related to LS in the child.
CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that the LS cancer spectrum may include childhood cancer. The importance of LS in pediatric cancers necessitates prospective data collection. Comprehensive molecular workup of tumor samples is necessary to explore the causal role of germline genetic variants.

Germline testing for hereditary cancer predisposition has become increasingly important in the management of patients with cancer. Recent studies have demonstrated that hereditary cancer predisposition is more common than previously recognized and germline pathogenic variants may be actionable for patient treatment strategies. This article reviews the significance of hereditary cancer predisposition assessment and highlights the current practices in germline genetic testing approaches.

Germline disruptive variants in Protection of Telomeres 1 (POT1) predispose to a wide variety of cancers, including melanoma, chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), Hodgkin lymphoma, myeloproliferative neoplasms, and glioma. We report the first case of splenic marginal zone lymphoma (SMZL) arising in a patient with a germline POT1 variant: a 65-year-old male with an extensive history of cancer, including melanoma and papillary thyroid carcinoma, who presented with circulating atypical lymphocytosis. Bone marrow biopsy revealed 20% involvement by a CD5-CD10- B-cell lymphoma that was difficult to classify. During the clinical workup of his low-grade lymphoma, targeted next-generation sequencing (NGS) identified POT1 p.I49Mfs*7 (NM_015450:c. 147delT) at a variant allele frequency (VAF) of 51%. NGS of skin fibroblasts confirmed the POT1 variant was germline. This likely pathogenic POT1 loss-of-function variant has only been reported once before as a germline variant in a patient with glioma and likely represents one of the most deleterious germline POT1 variants ever linked to familial cancer. The spectrum of cancers associated with germline pathogenic POT1 variants (i.e., autosomal dominant POT1 tumor predisposition syndrome) should potentially be expanded to include SMZL, a disease often associated with the loss of chromosome 7q: the location of the POT1 genetic locus (7q31.33).

OBJECTIVE: Individuals with cancer predisposition syndromes (CPS) are often followed in cancer screening programs, which aim to detect early stage tumors. While cancer surveillance has the potential to improve patient outcomes, its psychosocial impact is uncharacterized in the pediatric population. We examined the cancer surveillance experience from the perspectives of adolescents and parents of children at risk of developing cancer.
METHODS: Using grounded theory and thematic analysis qualitative methodology, we conducted semi-structured interviews with parents and adolescents, separately. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and coded separately to derive overlapping and unique themes.
RESULTS: We completed 20 semi-structured interviews (11 parents and nine adolescents). Positive experiences were related to feelings of reassurance and taking a proactive approach. Both adolescents and parents experienced worry, related to practical aspects of screening, and related to the reminder of cancer risk that manifests with surveillance appointments. This worry was cyclical, associated with appointments, and generally waned over time. Participants felt that the benefits of surveillance outweighed perceived challenges. Open communication with health care providers, and equipping parents/adolescents with vocabulary to discuss their diagnosis and care with others, were felt to be important for mitigating worries associated with cancer risk and surveillance.
CONCLUSIONS: Parents and adolescents experience worry associated with surveillance for CPS, which may warrant regular psychosocial support, particularly during the first year following CPS diagnosis. Enhancing communication with the health care team and among and beyond immediate family members represents an additional important strategy to mitigate adverse experiences and perceptions.

Carriers of deleterious mutations in breast cancer predisposition genes are presented with critical choices regarding cancer risk management. Risk-reduction mastectomy is a major preventative strategy in this population. Understanding the decision-making process for prophylactic mastectomy is essential in patient-centered care for high-risk carriers and patients with breast cancer. We sought to provide insight into influential factors underlying preventative surgery decisions among individuals with high breast cancer risk.
We conducted a retrospective chart review of pathogenic carriers of high-risk breast cancer genes who presented to the Moffitt GeneHome clinic between March 2017 and June 2020. Associations between preventative mastectomy choice and influence variables were analyzed via unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression models.
Of 258 high-risk mutation carriers, 104 (40.3%) underwent risk-reduction mastectomy. A significantly higher proportion of mastectomy patients reported prior history of breast cancer (68.9% vs. 16.5%; P < .001) and history of other risk-reduction or noncancer-related surgeries (61.7% vs. 25.8%; P < .001). Significant predictors affecting surgery decision included previous breast cancer history (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 10.48; 95% confidence interval [CI], 5.59-19.63; P < .0001), other risk-reduction or noncancer-related surgical history (aOR, 4.65; 95% CI, 2.28-9.47; P < .0001), and age at presentation to the genetics clinic (< 35 years old: aOR, 2.77; 95% CI, 1.04-7.4; P = .042; 35-55 years old: aOR, 2.48; 95% CI, 1.19-5.18; P = .016).
Preventive mastectomy decisions are highly personal and complex. In our sample, we observed prior history or concurrent breast cancer, history of other risk-reduction surgery or noncancer-related surgery, and younger age at presentation to the GeneHome clinic to be predictive of mastectomy uptake.

There are few guidelines for genetic counseling and management of pediatric cancer patients with probable cancer predisposition. In this study, we used a previously proposed patient selection tool by Jongmans and discussed the findings in regard to pediatric cancer patients we treated. Pediatric solid tumor patients who were treated in Kocaeli University Department of Pediatric Oncology were evaluated with the five main questions in Jongmans\' referral tool. All of the patients and records of diagnostic imaging were examined and analyzed. One-hundred-twenty-three patients participated in the study. The most common indication for genetic counseling was \'consanguinity of the parents\' with \'≥2 malignancies at childhood age\' following it. Fifty-two (42.28%) patients had indication for genetic counseling. We recommend developing and using genetics counseling selection tools such as Jongmans\' which helps clinicians differentiate patients with probable cancer predisposition.