Despite increasing use of next-generation sequencing (NGS), data concerning the gain in germline pathogenic variants (PVs) remain scanty, especially with respect to uncanonical ones. We aimed to verify the impact of different cancer predisposition genes (CPGs) on colorectal cancer (CRC) in patients referred for genetic evaluation.
We enrolled for NGS, by Illumina TruSight Cancer panel comprising 94 CPGs, 190 consecutive subjects referred for microsatellite instability (MSI) CRC, polyposis, and/or family history.
Overall, 51 (26.8%) subjects carried 64 PVs; PVs coexisted in 4 (7.8%) carriers. PVs in mismatch repair (MMR) genes accounted for one-third of variant burden (31.3%). Four Lynch syndrome patients (20%) harbored additional PVs (HOXB13, CHEK2, BRCA1, NF1 plus BRIP1); such multiple PVs occurred only in subjects with PVs in mismatch syndrome genes (4/20 versus 0/31; P = 0.02). Five of 22 (22.7%) patients with MSI cancers but wild-type MMR genes harbored PVs in unconventional genes (FANCL, FANCA, ATM, PTCH1, BAP1). In 10/63 patients (15.9%) with microsatellite stable CRC, 6 had MUTYH PVs (2 being homozygous) and 4 exhibited uncanonical PVs (BRCA2, BRIP1, MC1R, ATM). In polyposis, we detected PVs in 13 (25.5%) cases: 5 (9.8%) in APC, 6 (11.8%) with biallelic PVs in MUTYH, and 2 (3.9%) in uncanonical genes (FANCM, XPC). In subjects tested for family history only, we detected two carriers (18.2%) with PVs (ATM, MUTYH).
Uncanonical variants may account for up to one-third of PVs, underlining the urgent need of consensus on clinical advice for incidental findings in cancer-predisposing genes not related to patient phenotype.

OBJECTIVE: Despite regular colonoscopy surveillance, colorectal cancers still occur in patients with Lynch syndrome. Thus, detection of all relevant precancerous lesions remains very important. The present study investigates Linked Colour imaging (LCI), an image-enhancing technique, as compared with high-definition white light endoscopy (HD-WLE) for the detection of polyps in this patient group.
METHODS: This prospective, randomised controlled trial was performed by 22 experienced endoscopists from eight centres in six countries. Consecutive Lynch syndrome patients ≥18 years undergoing surveillance colonoscopy were randomised (1:1) and stratified by centre for inspection with either LCI or HD-WLE. Primary outcome was the polyp detection rate (PDR).
RESULTS: Between January 2018 and March 2020, 357 patients were randomised and 332 patients analysed (160 LCI, 172 HD-WLE; 6 excluded due to incomplete colonoscopies and 19 due to insufficient bowel cleanliness). No significant difference was observed in PDR with LCI (44.4%; 95% CI 36.5% to 52.4%) compared with HD-WLE (36.0%; 95% CI 28.9% to 43.7%) (p=0.12). Of the secondary outcome parameters, more adenomas were found on a patient (adenoma detection rate 36.3%; vs 25.6%; p=0.04) and a colonoscopy basis (mean adenomas per colonoscopy 0.65 vs 0.42; p=0.04). The median withdrawal time was not statistically different between LCI and HD-WLE (12 vs 11 min; p=0.16).
CONCLUSIONS: LCI did not improve the PDR compared with HD-WLE in patients with Lynch syndrome undergoing surveillance. The relevance of findings more adenomas by LCI has to be examined further.
BACKGROUND: NCT03344289.

暂无摘要。

BACKGROUND: Genetic counselling (GC) is an integral component in the care of individuals at risk for hereditary cancer predisposition syndromes (CPS). In many jurisdictions, access to timely counselling and testing is limited by financial constraints, by the shortage of genetics professionals and by labor-intensive traditional models of individual pre and post-test counselling. There is a need for further research regarding alternate methods of GC service delivery and implementation. This quality improvement project was initiated to determine if pretest group GC followed immediately by a \'mini\' individual session, would be acceptable to patients at risk for hereditary breast and colon cancer.
METHODS: Patients on waitlists for GC at the Provincial Medical Genetics Program in St. John\'s, NL, Canada (n = 112), were contacted by telephone and offered the option of a group counselling session (GGC), followed by a \"mini\" individual session, versus (TGC) traditional private appointments. GGC sessions consisted of a cancer genetics information session given to groups of 6-20 followed by brief 20 min \"mini\" individual sessions with the patient and genetic specialist. TGC individual appointments provided the same cancer genetics information and counselling to one patient at a time in the classic model. All but 2 participants selected group+mini session. A de-identified confidential 12-item, Likert scale survey was distributed at the conclusion of mini-sessions to measure perceptions of GGC and satisfaction with this counselling model.
RESULTS: Sixty participants completed questionnaires. The majority of participants strongly agreed that they were comfortable with the group session (58/60); the explanation of cancer genetics was clear (54/59); they understood their cancer risks (50/60); and they would recommend such a session to others (56/59). 38/53 respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed that they would prefer to wait for a traditional private appointment. All 5 participating genetic counselors reported a preference for this model. At the end of the pilot project, the waitlist for counselling/testing was reduced by 12 months.
CONCLUSIONS: Group pre-test genetic counselling combined with immediate \"mini\" individual session is strongly supported by patients and reduces wait times. Additional formal investigation of this approach in larger numbers of patients is warranted.

Heritable factors account for approximately 35% of colorectal cancer (CRC) risk, and almost 30% of the population in the UK have a family history of CRC. The quantification of an individual\'s lifetime risk of gastrointestinal cancer may incorporate clinical and molecular data, and depends on accurate phenotypic assessment and genetic diagnosis. In turn this may facilitate targeted risk-reducing interventions, including endoscopic surveillance, preventative surgery and chemoprophylaxis, which provide opportunities for cancer prevention. This guideline is an update from the 2010 British Society of Gastroenterology/Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (BSG/ACPGBI) guidelines for colorectal screening and surveillance in moderate and high-risk groups; however, this guideline is concerned specifically with people who have increased lifetime risk of CRC due to hereditary factors, including those with Lynch syndrome, polyposis or a family history of CRC. On this occasion we invited the UK Cancer Genetics Group (UKCGG), a subgroup within the British Society of Genetic Medicine (BSGM), as a partner to BSG and ACPGBI in the multidisciplinary guideline development process. We also invited external review through the Delphi process by members of the public as well as the steering committees of the European Hereditary Tumour Group (EHTG) and the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). A systematic review of 10 189 publications was undertaken to develop 67 evidence and expert opinion-based recommendations for the management of hereditary CRC risk. Ten research recommendations are also prioritised to inform clinical management of people at hereditary CRC risk.

OBJECTIVE: To establish whether colorectal cancer patients in two centres in the UK are screened appropriately for Lynch syndrome, in accordance with current international guidance.
METHODS: Patients newly diagnosed with colorectal cancer over an 18-month period were identified from the UK National Bowel Cancer Audit Programme. Their records and management were reviewed retrospectively.
METHODS: Two university teaching hospitals, Imperial College Healthcare and Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals NHS Trusts.
METHODS: Whether patients were screened for Lynch syndrome-and the outcome of that evaluation, if it took place-were assessed from patients\' clinical records. The age, tumour location and family history of screened patients were compared to those of unscreened patients.
RESULTS: Five hundred and fifty three patients with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer were identified. Of these, 97 (17.5%) satisfied the revised Bethesda criteria, and should have undergone further assessment. There was no evidence that those guidelines had been contemporaneously applied to any patient. In practice, only 22 of the 97 (22.7%) eligible patients underwent evaluation. The results for 14 of those 22 (63.6%) supported a diagnosis of Lynch syndrome, but only nine of the 14 (64.3%) were referred for formal mismatch repair gene testing. No factors reliably predicted whether or not a patient would undergo Lynch syndrome screening.
CONCLUSIONS: Colorectal teams in the UK do not follow international guidance identifying the patients who should be screened for Lynch syndrome. Patients and their families are consequently excluded from programmes reducing colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. Multidisciplinary teams should work with their local genetics services to develop reliable algorithms for patient screening and referral.

Most patients with path_MMR gene variants (Lynch syndrome (LS)) now survive both their first and subsequent cancers, resulting in a growing number of older patients with LS for whom limited information exists with respect to cancer risk and survival.
This observational, international, multicentre study aimed to determine prospectively observed incidences of cancers and survival in path_MMR carriers up to 75 years of age.
3119 patients were followed for a total of 24 475 years. Cumulative incidences at 75 years (risks) for colorectal cancer were 46%, 43% and 15% in path_MLH1, path_MSH2 and path_MSH6 carriers; for endometrial cancer 43%, 57% and 46%; for ovarian cancer 10%, 17% and 13%; for upper gastrointestinal (gastric, duodenal, bile duct or pancreatic) cancers 21%, 10% and 7%; for urinary tract cancers 8%, 25% and 11%; for prostate cancer 17%, 32% and 18%; and for brain tumours 1%, 5% and 1%, respectively. Ovarian cancer occurred mainly premenopausally. By contrast, upper gastrointestinal, urinary tract and prostate cancers occurred predominantly at older ages. Overall 5-year survival for prostate cancer was 100%, urinary bladder 93%, ureter 85%, duodenum 67%, stomach 61%, bile duct 29%, brain 22% and pancreas 0%. Path_PMS2 carriers had lower risk for cancer.
Carriers of different path_MMR variants exhibit distinct patterns of cancer risk and survival as they age. Risk estimates for counselling and planning of surveillance and treatment should be tailored to each patient\'s age, gender and path_MMR variant. We have updated our open-access website www.lscarisk.org to facilitate this.

Today most patients with Lynch syndrome (LS) survive their first cancer. There is limited information on the incidences and outcome of subsequent cancers. The present study addresses three questions: (i) what is the cumulative incidence of a subsequent cancer; (ii) in which organs do subsequent cancers occur; and (iii) what is the survival following these cancers?
Information was collated on prospectively organised surveillance and prospectively observed outcomes in patients with LS who had cancer prior to inclusion and analysed by age, gender and genetic variants.
1273 patients with LS from 10 countries were followed up for 7753 observation years. 318 patients (25.7%) developed 341 first subsequent cancers, including colorectal (n=147, 43%), upper GI, pancreas or bile duct (n=37, 11%) and urinary tract (n=32, 10%). The cumulative incidences for any subsequent cancer from age 40 to age 70 years were 73% for pathogenic MLH1 (path_MLH1), 76% for path_MSH2 carriers and 52% for path_MSH6 carriers, and for colorectal cancer (CRC) the cumulative incidences were 46%, 48% and 23%, respectively. Crude survival after any subsequent cancer was 82% (95% CI 76% to 87%) and 10-year crude survival after CRC was 91% (95% CI 83% to 95%).
Relative incidence of subsequent cancer compared with incidence of first cancer was slightly but insignificantly higher than cancer incidence in patients with LS without previous cancer (range 0.94-1.49). The favourable survival after subsequent cancers validated continued follow-up to prevent death from cancer. The interactive website http://lscarisk.org was expanded to calculate the risks by gender, genetic variant and age for subsequent cancer for any patient with LS with previous cancer.