Yelena Kemel

PURPOSE: Microsatellite instability (MSI) and/or mismatch repair deficiency (MMR-D) testing has traditionally been performed in patients with colorectal (CRC) and endometrial cancer (EC) to screen for Lynch syndrome (LS)-associated cancer predisposition. The recent success of immunotherapy in high-frequency MSI (MSI-H) and/or MMR-D tumors now supports testing for MSI in all advanced solid tumors. The extent to which LS accounts for MSI-H across heterogeneous tumor types is unknown. Here, we establish the prevalence of LS across solid tumors according to MSI status. METHODS: MSI status was determined using targeted next-generation sequencing, with tumors classified as MSI-H, MSI-indeterminate, or microsatellite-stable. Matched germline DNA was analyzed for mutations in LS-associated mismatch repair genes ( MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2, EPCAM). In patients with LS with MSI-H/I tumors, immunohistochemical staining for MMR-D was assessed. RESULTS: Among 15,045 unique patients (more than 50 cancer types), LS was identified in 16.3% (53 of 326), 1.9% (13 of 699), and 0.3% (37 of 14,020) of patients with MSI-H, MSI-indeterminate, and microsatellite-stable tumors, respectively ( P < .001). Among patients with LS with MSI-H/I tumors, 50% (33 of 66) had tumors other than CRC/EC, including urothelial, prostate, pancreas, adrenocortical, small bowel, sarcoma, mesothelioma, melanoma, gastric, and germ cell tumors. In these patients with non-CRC/EC tumors, 45% (15 of 33) did not meet LS genetic testing criteria on the basis of personal/family history. Immunohistochemical staining of LS-positive MSI-H/I tumors demonstrated MMR-D in 98.2% (56 of 57) of available cases. CONCLUSION: MSI-H/MMR-D is predictive of LS across a much broader tumor spectrum than currently appreciated. Given implications for cancer surveillance and prevention measures in affected families, these data support germline genetic assessment for LS for patients with an MSI-H/MMR-D tumor, regardless of cancer type or family cancer history.

Importance: Guidelines for cancer genetic testing based on family history may miss clinically actionable genetic changes with established implications for cancer screening or prevention. Objective: To determine the proportion and potential clinical implications of inherited variants detected using simultaneous sequencing of the tumor and normal tissue ("tumor-normal sequencing") compared with genetic test results based on current guidelines. Design, Setting, and Participants: From January 2014 until May 2016 at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 10 336 patients consented to tumor DNA sequencing. Since May 2015, 1040 of these patients with advanced cancer were referred by their oncologists for germline analysis of 76 cancer predisposition genes. Patients with clinically actionable inherited mutations whose genetic test results would not have been predicted by published decision rules were identified. Follow-up for potential clinical implications of mutation detection was through May 2017. Exposure: Tumor and germline sequencing compared with the predicted yield of targeted germline sequencing based on clinical guidelines. Main Outcomes and Measures: Proportion of clinically actionable germline mutations detected by universal tumor-normal sequencing that would not have been detected by guideline-directed testing. Results: Of 1040 patients, the median age was 58 years (interquartile range, 50.5-66 years), 65.3% were male, and 81.3% had stage IV disease at the time of genomic analysis, with prostate, renal, pancreatic, breast, and colon cancer as the most common diagnoses. Of the 1040 patients, 182 (17.5%; 95% CI, 15.3%-19.9%) had clinically actionable mutations conferring cancer susceptibility, including 149 with moderate- to high-penetrance mutations; 101 patients tested (9.7%; 95% CI, 8.1%-11.7%) would not have had these mutations detected using clinical guidelines, including 65 with moderate- to high-penetrance mutations. Frequency of inherited mutations was related to case mix, stage, and founder mutations. Germline findings led to discussion or initiation of change to targeted therapy in 38 patients tested (3.7%) and predictive testing in the families of 13 individuals (1.3%), including 6 for whom genetic evaluation would not have been initiated by guideline-based testing. Conclusions and Relevance: In this referral population with selected advanced cancers, universal sequencing of a broad panel of cancer-related genes in paired germline and tumor DNA samples was associated with increased detection of individuals with potentially clinically significant heritable mutations over the predicted yield of targeted germline testing based on current clinical guidelines. Knowledge of these additional mutations can help guide therapeutic and preventive interventions, but whether all of these interventions would improve outcomes for patients with cancer or their family members requires further study. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01775072.

Background: Identification of pathogenic germline alterations (PGAs) has important clinical and therapeutic implications in pancreas cancer. We performed comprehensive germline testing (GT) in an unselected prospective cohort of patients with exocrine pancreatic neoplasms with genotype and phenotype association to facilitate identification of prognostic and/or predictive biomarkers and examine potential therapeutic implications. Methods: Six hundred fifteen unselected patients with exocrine pancreatic neoplasms were prospectively consented for somatic tumor and matched sample profiling for 410-468 genes. GT for PGAs in 76 genes associated with cancer susceptibility was performed in an "identified" manner in 356 (57.9%) patients and in an "anonymized" manner in 259 (42.1%) patients, using an institutional review board-approved protocol. Detailed clinical and pathological features, response to platinum, and overall survival (OS) were collected for the identified cohort. OS was analyzed with Kaplan-Meier curves. Results: PGAs were present in 122 (19.8%) of 615 patients involving 24 different genes, including BRCA1/2, ATM, PALB2, and multiple additional genes associated with the DNA damage response pathway. Of 122 patients with germline alterations, 41.8% did not meet current guidelines for GT. The difference in median OS was not statistically significant between patients with and without PGA (50.8 months, 95% confidence interval = 34.5 to not reached, two-sided P = .94). Loss of heterozygosity was found in 60.0% of BRCA1/2. Conclusions: PGAs frequently occur in pancreas exocrine neoplasms and involve multiple genes beyond those previously associated with hereditary pancreatic cancer. These PGAs are therapeutically actionable in about 5% to 10% of patients. These data support routinely offering GT in all pancreatic ductal adenocarcimona patients with a broad panel of known hereditary cancer predisposition genes.

Importance: Identification of patients with hereditary renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is important for cancer screening and, in patients with advanced disease, for guiding treatment. The prevalence of cancer-related germline mutations in patients with advanced RCC and the phenotypes associated with some rare mutations are unknown. Objectives: To examine the prevalence of germline mutations in both known RCC predisposition genes and other cancer-associated genes and to identify clinical and pathologic factors associated with germline mutations. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cohort study conducted from October 1, 2015, to July 31, 2017, 254 of 267 patients with advanced (American Joint Committee on Cancer stage III or IV) RCC who were seen in medical oncology or urology clinics agreed to germline sequencing and disclosure of results under an institutional protocol of matched tumor-germline DNA sequencing. Main Outcomes and Measures: Mutation prevalence and spectrum in patients with advanced RCC were determined. Clinical characteristics were assessed by mutation status. Results: Of the 254 patients (median age [range], 56 [13-79] years; 179 [70.5%] male; 211 [83.1%] non-Hispanic white), germline mutations were identified in 41 (16.1%); 14 (5.5%) had mutations in syndromic RCC-associated genes (7 in FH, 3 in BAP1, and 1 each in VHL, MET, SDHA, and SDHB). The most frequent mutations were CHEK2 (n = 9) and FH (n = 7). Of genes not previously associated with RCC risk, CHEK2 was overrepresented in patients compared with the general population, with an odds ratio of RCC of 3.0 (95% CI, 1.3-5.8; P = .003). Patients with non-clear cell RCC were significantly more likely to have an RCC-associated gene mutation (9 [11.7%] of 74 vs 3 [1.7%] of 177; P = .001), and 8 (10.0%) had a mutation in a gene that could guide therapy. Of patients with mutations in RCC-associated genes, 5 (35.7%) failed to meet current clinical guidelines for genetic testing. Conclusions and Relevance: Of patients with non-clear cell RCC, more than 20% had a germline mutation, of which half had the potential to direct systemic therapy. Current referral criteria for genetic testing did not identify a substantial portion of patients with mutations, supporting the role of a more inclusive sequencing approach.

BACKGROUND: The causative factors for the recent increase in early-onset colorectal cancer (EO-CRC) incidence are unknown. We sought to determine if early-onset disease is clinically or genomically distinct from average-onset colorectal cancer (AO-CRC). METHODS: Clinical, histopathologic, and genomic characteristics of EO-CRC patients (2014-2019), divided into age 35 years and younger and 36-49 years at diagnosis, were compared with AO-CRC (50 years and older). Patients with mismatch repair deficient tumors, CRC-related hereditary syndromes, and inflammatory bowel disease were excluded from all but the germline analysis. All statistical tests were 2-sided. RESULTS: In total, 759 patients with EO-CRC (35 years, n = 151; 36-49 years, n = 608) and AO-CRC (n = 687) were included. Left-sided tumors (35 years and younger = 80.8%; 36-49 years = 83.7%; AO = 63.9%; P < .001 for both comparisons), rectal bleeding (35 years and younger = 41.1%; 36-49 years = 41.0%; AO = 25.9%; P = .001 and P < .001, respectively), and abdominal pain (35 years and younger = 37.1%; 36-49 years = 34.0%; AO = 26.8%; P = .01 and P = .005, respectively) were more common in EO-CRC. Among microsatellite stable tumors, we found no differences in histopathologic tumor characteristics. Initially, differences in TP53 and Receptor Tyrosine Kinase signaling pathway (RTK-RAS)alterations were noted by age. However, on multivariate analysis including somatic gene analysis and tumor sidedness, no statistically significant differences at the gene or pathway level were demonstrated. Among advanced microsatellite stable CRCs, chemotherapy response and survival were equivalent by age cohorts. Pathogenic germline variants were identified in 23.3% of patients 35 years and younger vs 14.1% of AO-CRC (P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: EO-CRCs are more commonly left-sided and present with rectal bleeding and abdominal pain but are otherwise clinically and genomically indistinguishable from AO-CRCs. Aggressive treatment regimens based solely on the age at CRC diagnosis are not warranted.