Recurrent glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) is incurable with current therapies. Biallelic mismatch repair deficiency (bMMRD) is a highly penetrant childhood cancer syndrome often resulting in GBM ...characterized by a high mutational burden. Evidence suggests that high mutation and neoantigen loads are associated with response to immune checkpoint inhibition.
We performed exome sequencing and neoantigen prediction on 37 bMMRD cancers and compared them with childhood and adult brain neoplasms. Neoantigen prediction bMMRD GBM was compared with responsive adult cancers from multiple tissues. Two siblings with recurrent multifocal bMMRD GBM were treated with the immune checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab.
All malignant tumors (n = 32) were hypermutant. Although bMMRD brain tumors had the highest mutational load because of secondary polymerase mutations (mean, 17,740 ± standard deviation, 7,703), all other high-grade tumors were hypermutant (mean, 1,589 ± standard deviation, 1,043), similar to other cancers that responded favorably to immune checkpoint inhibitors. bMMRD GBM had a significantly higher mutational load than sporadic pediatric and adult gliomas and all other brain tumors (P < .001). bMMRD GBM harbored mean neoantigen loads seven to 16 times higher than those in immunoresponsive melanomas, lung cancers, or microsatellite-unstable GI cancers (P < .001). On the basis of these preclinical data, we treated two bMMRD siblings with recurrent multifocal GBM with the anti-programmed death-1 inhibitor nivolumab, which resulted in clinically significant responses and a profound radiologic response.
This report of initial and durable responses of recurrent GBM to immune checkpoint inhibition may have implications for GBM in general and other hypermutant cancers arising from primary (genetic predisposition) or secondary MMRD.
Most secondary genomic findings (SFs) fall in the scope of primary care practice. However, primary care providers' (PCPs) capacity to manage these findings is not well understood. We explored PCPs' ...views and experiences of managing SFs through a qualitative study. PCPs participated in semi-structured interviews about SFs from a patient in their practice or a hypothetical patient. The interpretive descriptive methodology was used to analyze transcripts thematically through constant comparison. Fifteen family physicians from Ontario, Canada participated (ten females; 6-40 years in practice across community and academic settings). PCPs made sense of SFs through the lens of actionability: they actively looked for clinical relevance by considering a wide range of immediate and future actions, including referrals, genetic testing, screening, lifestyle changes, counseling about family planning, informing family members, future medication choice, increased vigilance/surveillance, and managing results in the electronic medical record. PCPs saw clinical actionability as the main benefit mitigating the potential harms of learning SFs, namely patient anxiety and unnecessary investigations. PCPs conceptualized actionability more broadly than it is traditionally defined in medical genetics. Further research will be needed to determine if PCPs' emphasis on actionability conflicts with patients' expectations of SFs and if it leads to overutilization of healthcare resources.
Hereditary diffuse gastric cancer (HDGC) is an inherited cancer syndrome associated with high lifetime risk of diffuse-type gastric cancer. Current guidelines recommend individuals with HDGC undergo ...prophylactic total gastrectomy (PTG) to eliminate this risk. However, PTG is associated with significant lifestyle changes, post-surgical recovery, and symptom burden. This study examined factors related to decision-making about PTG in three groups of individuals who: (1) underwent PTG immediately after receiving genetic testing results; (2) delayed PTG by ≥ 1 year or; (3) declined PTG. Participants were recruited from a familial gastric cancer registry at a tertiary care hospital. Patients with
CDH1
pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants who contemplated and/or underwent PTG were eligible. 24 individuals contemplated PTG: 9 had immediate surgery (within a year), 8 delayed surgery, and 7 declined surgery. Data on PTG barriers and facilitators were obtained on all participants using quantitative surveys (n = 7), qualitative interviews (n = 8) or both methods (n = 9). PTG barriers included age, positive beliefs about screening, close relatives with negative PTG experiences, fertility-related concerns, and life stress. Facilitators included social support, trust in healthcare providers, understanding risk, negative beliefs about screening, family-related factors, positive or abnormal screening results, and positive attitude toward PTG. This study highlights factors related to the PTG decision-making process among individuals with HDGC from three distinct groups. Future research should explore educational interventions aimed at addressing surgery-related concerns and the limitations of screening, and might also consider incorporating close relatives as informational supports.
To evaluate the effectiveness of the Genomics ADvISER (www.genomicsadviser.com) decision aid (DA) for selection of secondary findings (SF), compared with genetic counseling alone.
A randomized ...controlled trial (RCT) was conducted to evaluate whether the Genomics ADvISER is superior to genetic counseling when hypothetically selecting SF. Participants were randomized to use the DA followed by discussion with a genetic counselor, or to genetic counseling alone. Surveys were administered at baseline and post-intervention. Primary outcome was decisional conflict. Secondary outcomes were knowledge, preparation for, and satisfaction with decision-making, anxiety, and length of counseling session.
Participants (n = 133) were predominantly White/European (74%), female (90%), and ≥50 years old (60%). Decisional conflict (mean difference 0.05; P = 0.60), preparation for decision-making (0.17; P = 0.95), satisfaction with decision (–2.18; P = 0.06), anxiety (0.72; P = 0.56), and knowledge of sequencing limitations (0.14; P = 0.70) did not significantly differ between groups. However, intervention participants had significantly higher knowledge of SF (0.39; P < 0.001) and sequencing benefits (0.97; P = 0.01), and significantly shorter counseling time (24.40 minutes less; P < 0.001)
The Genomics ADvISER did not decrease decisional conflict but reduced counseling time and improved knowledge. This decision aid could serve as an educational tool, reducing in-clinic time and potentially health care costs.
Purpose
Lynch syndrome and chronic inflammatory bowel disease are two important risk factors for colorectal cancer. It is unclear whether Lynch syndrome patients with inflammatory bowel disease are ...at sufficiently increased risk for colorectal cancer to warrant prophylactic colectomy. This study aims to identify all cases of Lynch syndrome and concurrent inflammatory bowel disease in a large familial gastrointestinal cancer registry, define incidence of colorectal cancer, and characterize mismatch repair protein gene mutation status and inflammatory bowel disease-associated colorectal cancer risk factors.
Methods
We retrospectively identified and collected clinical data for all cases with confirmed diagnoses of Lynch syndrome and inflammatory bowel disease in the Familial Gastrointestinal Cancer Registry at Mount Sinai Hospital in Toronto, Canada.
Results
Twelve cases of confirmed Lynch syndrome, and concurrent inflammatory bowel disease were identified. Four cases developed colorectal cancer. An additional five cases had colectomy; one was performed for severe colitis, and four were performed for low-grade dysplasia. None of these surgical specimens contained malignancy or high-grade dysplasia.
Conclusions
The presentation of Lynch syndrome with inflammatory bowel disease is uncommon and not well described in the literature. This small but important series of twelve cases is the largest reported to date. In this series, patients with Lynch syndrome and concurrent inflammatory bowel disease do not appear to have sufficiently increased risk for colorectal cancer to recommend prophylactic surgery. Therefore, the decision to surgery should continue to be guided by surgical indications for each disease. Further evaluation of this important area will require multi-institutional input.
Alternative models of genetic counseling are needed to meet the rising demand for genomic sequencing. Digital tools have been proposed as a method to augment traditional counseling and reduce burden ...on professionals; however, their role in delivery of genetic counseling is not established. This study explored the role of the Genomics ADvISER, a digital decision aid, in delivery of genomic counseling.
We performed secondary analysis of 52 pretest genetic counseling sessions that were conducted over the course of a randomized controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of the Genomics ADvISER. As part of the trial, participants were randomized to receive standard counseling or use the tool and then speak with a counselor. A qualitative interpretive description approach using thematic analysis and constant comparison was used for analysis.
In the delivery of genomic counseling, the Genomics ADvISER contributed to enhancing counseling by (1) promoting informed dialogue, (2) facilitating preference-sensitive deliberation, and (3) deepening personalization of decisions, all of which represent fundamental principles of patient-centered care: providing clear high-quality information, respecting patients’ values, preferences, and expressed needs, and providing emotional support.
This study demonstrates that our digital tool contributed to enhancing patient-centered care in the delivery of genomic counseling.
There is growing impetus to include measures of personal utility, the nonmedical value of information, in addition to clinical utility in health technology assessment (HTA) of genomic tests such as ...genomic sequencing (GS). However, personal utility and clinical utility are challenging to define and measure. This study aimed to explore what drives patients' preferences for hypothetically learning medically actionable and non-medically actionable secondary findings (SF), capturing clinical and personal utility; this may inform development of measures to evaluate patient outcomes following return of SF. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with adults with a personal or family cancer history participating in a trial of a decision aid for selection of SF from genomic sequencing (GS) ( www.GenomicsADvISER.com ). Interviews were analyzed thematically using constant comparison. Preserving health-related and non-health-related quality of life was an overarching motivator for both learning and not learning SF. Some participants perceived that learning SF would help them "have a good quality of life" through informing actions to maintain physical health or leading to psychological benefits such as emotional preparation for disease. Other participants preferred not to learn SF because results "could ruin your quality of life," such as by causing negative psychological impacts. Measuring health-related and non-health-related quality of life may capture outcomes related to clinical and personal utility of GS and SF, which have previously been challenging to measure. Without appropriate measures, generating and synthesizing evidence to evaluate genomic technologies such as GS will continue to be a challenge, and will undervalue potential benefits of GS and SF.
Guidelines recommend that providers engage patients in shared decision-making about receiving incidental results (IR) prior to genomic sequencing (GS), but this can be time-consuming, given the ...myriad of IR and variation in patients' preferences. We aimed to develop patient profiles to inform pre-test counseling for IR. We conducted semi-structured interviews with participants as a part of a randomized trial of the GenomicsADvISER.com, a decision aid for selecting IR. Interviews explored factors participants considered when deliberating over learning IR. Interviews were analyzed by thematic analysis and constant comparison. Participants were mostly female (28/31) and about half of them were over the age of 50 (16/31). We identified five patient profiles that reflect common contextual factors, attitudes, concerns, and perceived utility of IR. Information Enthusiasts self-identified as "planners" and valued learning most or all IR to enable planning and disease prevention because "knowledge is power". Concerned Individuals defined themselves as "anxious," and were reluctant to learn IR, anticipating negative psychological impacts from IR. Contemplators were discerning about the value and limitations of IR, weighing health benefits with the impacts of not being able to "un-know" information. Individuals of Advanced Life Stage did not consider IR relevant for themselves and primarily considered their implications for family members. Reassurance Seekers were reassured by previous negative genetic test results which shaped their expectations for receiving no IR: "hopefully GS will be negative, too. And then I can rest easy". These profiles could inform targeted counseling for IR by providing a framework to address common values, concerns. and misconceptions.
Colorectal cancer can arise through two distinct mutational pathways: microsatellite instability or chromosomal instability. We tested the hypothesis that colorectal cancers arising from the ...microsatellite-instability pathway have distinctive clinical attributes that affect clinical outcome.
We tested specimens of colorectal cancer from a population-based series of 607 patients (50 years of age or younger at diagnosis) for microsatellite instability. We compared the clinical features and survival of patients who had colorectal cancer characterized by high-frequency microsatellite instability with these characteristics in patients who had colorectal cancers with microsatellite stability.
We found high-frequency microsatellite instability in 17 percent of the colorectal cancers in 607 patients, and in a multivariate analysis, microsatellite instability was associated with a significant survival advantage independently of all standard prognostic factors, including tumor stage (hazard ratio, 0.42; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.27 to 0.67; P< 0.001). Furthermore, regardless of the depth of tumor invasion, colorectal cancers with high-frequency microsatellite instability had a decreased likelihood of metastasizing to regional lymph nodes (odds ratio, 0.33; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.21 to 0.53; P< 0.001) or distant organs (odds ratio, 0.49; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.27 to 0.89; P=0.02).
High-frequency microsatellite instability in colorectal cancer is independently predictive of a relatively favorable outcome and, in addition, reduces the likelihood of metastases.
IntroductionThe high demand for genetic tests and limited supply of genetics professionals has created a need for alternative service delivery models. Digital tools are increasingly being used to ...support multiple points in the genetic testing journey; however, none are transferable across multiple clinical specialties and settings nor do they encompass the entire trajectory of the journey. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness of the Genetics Adviser, an interactive, patient-facing, online digital health tool that delivers pre-test counselling, provides support during the waiting period for results, and returns results with post-test counselling, encompassing the entire patient genetic testing journey.Methods and analysisWe will compare the Genetics Adviser paired with a brief genetic counselling session to genetic counselling alone in a randomised controlled trial. One hundred and forty patients who previously received uninformative genetic test results for their personal and family history of cancer will be recruited from familial cancer clinics in Toronto and offered all clinically significant results from genomic sequencing. Participants randomised into the intervention arm will use the Genetics Adviser to learn about genomic sequencing, receive pre-test counselling, support during the waiting period and results, supplemented with brief counselling from a genetic counsellor. Participants in the control arm will receive standard pre-test and post-test counselling for genomic sequencing from a genetic counsellor. Our primary outcome is decisional conflict following pre-test counselling from the Genetics Adviser+genetic counsellor or counsellor alone. Secondary outcomes include: knowledge, satisfaction with decision-making, anxiety, quality of life, psychological impact of results, empowerment, acceptability and economic impact for patients and the health system. A subset of patients will be interviewed to assess user experience.Ethics and disseminationThis study has been approved by Clinical Trials Ontario Streamlined Research Ethics Review System (REB#20–035). Results will be shared through stakeholder workshops, national and international conferences and peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberNCT04725565.
PDF
