Surveillance for pancreatic cancer in high-risk individuals

Background: Surveillance of individuals at high risk of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and its precursors might lead to better outcomes. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence and outcomes of PDAC and high-risk neoplastic precursor lesions among such patients participating in surveillance programmes. Methods: A multicentre study was conducted through the International CAncer of the Pancreas Screening (CAPS) Consortium Registry to identify high-risk individuals who had undergone pancreatic resection or progressed to advanced PDAC while under surveillance. High-risk neoplastic precursor lesions were defined as: pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PanIN) 3, intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasia (IPMN) with high-grade dysplasia, and pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours at least 2 cm in diameter. Results: Of 76 high-risk individuals identified in 11 surveillance programmes, 71 had undergone surgery and five had been diagnosed with inoperable PDAC. Of the 71 patients who underwent resection, 32 (45 per cent) had PDAC or a high-risk precursor (19 PDAC, 4 main-duct IPMN, 4 branch-duct IPMN, 5 PanIN-3); the other 39 patients had lesions thought to be associated with a lower risk of neoplastic progression. Age at least 65 years, female sex, carriage of a gene mutation and location of a lesion in the head/uncinate region were associated with high-risk precursor lesions or PDAC. The survival of high-risk individuals with low-risk neoplastic lesions did not differ from that in those with high-risk precursor lesions. Survival was worse among patients with PDAC. There was no surgery-related mortality. Conclusion: A high proportion of high-risk individuals who had surgical resection for screening- or surveillance-detected pancreatic lesions had a high-risk neoplastic precursor lesion or PDAC

Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research Consortium: Accelerating Evidence-Based Practice of Genomic Medicine

Despite rapid technical progress and demonstrable effectiveness for some types of diagnosis and therapy, much remains to be learned about clinical genome and exome sequencing (CGES) and its role within the practice of medicine. The Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) consortium includes 18 extramural research projects, one National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) intramural project, and a coordinating center funded by the NHGRI and National Cancer Institute. The consortium is exploring analytic and clinical validity and utility, as well as the ethical, legal, and social implications of sequencing via multidisciplinary approaches; it has thus far recruited 5,577 participants across a spectrum of symptomatic and healthy children and adults by utilizing both germline and cancer sequencing. The CSER consortium is analyzing data and creating publically available procedures and tools related to participant preferences and consent, variant classification, disclosure and management of primary and secondary findings, health outcomes, and integration with electronic health records. Future research directions will refine measures of clinical utility of CGES in both germline and somatic testing, evaluate the use of CGES for screening in healthy individuals, explore the penetrance of pathogenic variants through extensive phenotyping, reduce discordances in public databases of genes and variants, examine social and ethnic disparities in the provision of genomics services, explore regulatory issues, and estimate the value and downstream costs of sequencing. The CSER consortium has established a shared community of research sites by using diverse approaches to pursue the evidence-based development of best practices in genomic medicine

Phenotype comparison of MLH1 and MSH2 mutation carriers in a cohort of 1,914 individuals undergoing clinical genetic testing in the United States

Background and Aims: Lynch syndrome is caused by germ-line mismatch repair gene mutations. We examined the phenotypic differences between MLH1 and MSH2 gene mutation carriers and whether mutation type (point versus large rearrangement) affected phenotypic expression. Methods: This is a cross-sectional prevalence study of 1,914 unrelated probands undergoing clinical genetic testing for MLH1 and MSH2 mutations at a commercial laboratory. Results: Fifteen percent (285 of 1,914) of subjects had pathogenic mutations (112 MLH1, 173 MSH2). MLH1 carriers had a higher prevalence of colorectal cancer (79% versus 69%, P = 0.08) and younger mean age at diagnosis (42.2 versus 44.8 years, P = 0.03) than MSH2 carriers. Forty-one percent of female carriers had endometrial cancer and prevalence was similar in both groups. Other cancers were more frequent in MSH2 carriers (24% versus 9%, P = 0.001) and their families (P < 0.001). Multivariable analyses confirmed these associations. Of the 1,016 subjects who underwent Southern blot analysis, 42 had large rearrangements (7 MLH1, 35 MSH2). There were no phenotypic differences between carriers with large rearrangements and point mutations. Conclusions: In this large study of mismatch repair gene mutation carriers from the United States, MLH1 carriers had more colorectal cancer than MSH2 carriers whereas endometrial cancer prevalence was similar. Large genomic rearrangements were more frequent in the MSH2 gene. MSH2 carriers and their relatives have more extracolonic nonendometrial Lynch syndrome-associated cancers and may benefit from additional screening. Copyrigh