MLH1-methylated endometrial cancer under 60 years of age as the “sentinel” cancer in female carriers of high-risk constitutional MLH1 epimutation

Objective. Universal screening of endometrial carcinoma (EC) for mismatch repair deficiency (MMRd) and Lynch syndrome uses presence of MLH1 methylation to omit common sporadic cases from follow-up germline testing. However, this overlooks rare cases with high-risk constitutional MLH1 methylation (epimutation), a poorly-recognized mechanism that predisposes to Lynch-type cancers with MLH1 methylation. We aimed to de-termine the role and frequency of constitutional MLH1 methylation among EC cases with MMRd, MLH1- methylated tumors.Methods. We screened blood for constitutional MLH1 methylation using pyrosequencing and real-time methylation-specific PCR in patients with MMRd, MLH1-methylated EC ascertained from (i) cancer clinics (n = 4, <60 years), and (ii) two population-based cohorts; Columbus-area (n = 68, all ages) and Ohio Colo-rectal Cancer Prevention Initiative (OCCPI) (n = 24, <60 years).Results. Constitutional MLH1 methylation was identified in three out of four patients diagnosed between 36 and 59 years from cancer clinics. Two had mono-/hemiallelic epimutation (similar to 50% alleles methylated). One with multiple primaries had low-level mosaicism in normal tissues and somatic second-hits affecting the unmethylated allele in all tumors, demonstrating causation. In the population-based cohorts, all 68 cases from the Columbus-area cohort were negative and low-level mosaic constitutional MLH1 methylation was identified in one patient aged 36 years out of 24 from the OCCPI cohort, representing one of six (similar to 17%) patients <50 years and one of 45 patients (similar to 2%) <60 years in the combined cohorts. EC was the first/dual-first cancer in three pa-tients with underlying constitutional MLH1 methylation.Conclusions. A correct diagnosis at first presentation of cancer is important as it will significantly alter clinical management. Screening for constitutional MLH1 methylation is warranted in patients with early-onset EC or syn-chronous/metachronous tumors (any age) displaying MLH1 methylation.(c) 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Randomized Noninferiority Trial of Telephone vs In-Person Genetic Counseling for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer: A 12-Month Follow-Up

Background: Telephone delivery of genetic counseling is an alternative to in-person genetic counseling because it may extend the reach of genetic counseling. Previous reports have established the noninferiority of telephone counseling on short-term psychosocial and decision-making outcomes. Here we examine the long-term impact of telephone counseling (TC) vs inperson counseling (usual care [UC]). Methods: We recruited high-risk women for a noninferiority trial comparing TC with UC. Of 1057 potentially eligible women, 669 were randomly assigned to TC (n = 335) or UC (n = 334), and 512 completed the 12-month follow-up. Primary outcomes were patient-reported satisfaction with genetic testing decision, distress, and quality of life. Secondary outcomes were uptake of cancer risk management strategies. Results: TC was noninferior to UC on all primary outcomes. Satisfaction with decision (d = 0.13, lower bound of 97.5% confidence interval [CI] = -0.34) did not cross its one-point noninferiority limit, cancer-specific distress (d = -2.10, upper bound of 97.5% CI = -0.07) did not cross its four-point noninferiority limit, and genetic testing distress (d = -0.27, upper bound of 97.5% CI = 1.46), physical function (d = 0.44, lower bound of 97.5% CI = -0.91) and mental function (d = -0.04, lower bound of 97.5% CI = -1.44) did not cross their 2.5-point noninferiority limit. Bivariate analyses showed no differences in risk-reducing mastectomy or oophorectomy across groups; however, when combined, TC had significantly more risk-reducing surgeries than UC (17.8% vs 10.5%; chi(2) = 4.43, P = .04). Conclusions: Findings support telephone delivery of genetic counseling to extend the accessibility of this service without long-termadverse outcomes.This study was supported by grants (R01 CA108933 and P30 CA051008) from the National Cancer Institute and by the Jess and Mildred Fisher Center for Hereditary Cancer and Clinical Genomics Research.Peer Reviewe