Diana M Eccles

Lynch syndrome diagnostic testing pathways in endometrial cancers: a nationwide English registry-based study

Background For female patients with Lynch syndrome (LS), endometrial cancer (EC) is often their first cancer diagnosis. A testing pathway of somatic tumour testing triage followed by germline mismatch repair (MMR) gene testing is an effective way of identifying the estimated 3% of EC caused by LS. Methods A retrospective national population-based observational study was conducted using comprehensive national data collections of functional, somatic and germline MMR tests available via the English National Cancer Registration Dataset. For all EC diagnosed in 2019, the proportion tested, median time to test, yield of abnormal results and factors influencing testing pathway initiation were examined. Results There was an immunohistochemistry (IHC) or microsatellite instability (MSI) test recorded for 17.8% (1408/7928) of patients diagnosed with EC in 2019. Proportions tested varied by Cancer Alliance and age. There was an MLH1 promoter hypermethylation test recorded for 43.1% (149/346) of patients with MLH1 protein IHC loss or MSI. Of patients with EC eligible from tumour-testing, 25% (26/104) had a germline MMR test recorded. Median time from cancer diagnosis to germline MMR test was 315 days (IQR 222–486). Conclusion This analysis highlights the regional variation in recorded testing, patient attrition, delays and missed opportunities to diagnose LS, providing an informative baseline for measuring the impact of the national guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence on universal reflex LS testing in EC, implemented in 2020.

Variants of uncertain clinical significance in hereditary breast and ovarian cancer genes: best practices in functional analysis for clinical annotation

Germline DNA tests to identify pathogenic variants in genes linked to hereditary breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility have become widely available. However, the clinical utility of genetic testing depends on reliable evidence-based classification of sequence variants. Determination of pathogenicity traditionally relies on painstaking pedigree-based segregation analyses. However, the rapid increase in usage of germline DNA tests has led to the discovery of a large number of variants of uncertain clinical significance (VUS). For most VUS there is insufficient information for segregation analysis and therefore assessment of functional consequences is increasingly being used to support clinical annotation. Functional assays need to be accurate, robust, and reproducible to be used for clinical purposes. Here we use the lessons learned from

UK consensus recommendations for clinical management of cancer risk for women with germline pathogenic variants in cancer predisposition genes: RAD51C, RAD51D, BRIP1 and PALB2

Germline pathogenic variants (GPVs) in the cancer predisposition genes BRCA1, BRCA2, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, BRIP1, PALB2, RAD51D and RAD51C are identified in approximately 15% of patients with ovarian cancer (OC). While there are clear guidelines around clinical management of cancer risk in patients with GPV in BRCA1, BRCA2, MLH1, MSH2 and MSH6, there are few guidelines on how to manage the more moderate OC risk in patients with GPV in BRIP1, PALB2, RAD51D and RAD51C, with clinical questions about appropriateness and timing of risk-reducing gynaecological surgery. Furthermore, while recognition of RAD51C and RAD51D as OC predisposition genes has been established for several years, an association with breast cancer (BC) has only more recently been described and clinical management of this risk has been unclear. With expansion of genetic testing of these genes to all patients with non-mucinous OC, new data on BC risk and improved estimates of OC risk, the UK Cancer Genetics Group and CanGene-CanVar project convened a 2-day meeting to reach a national consensus on clinical management of BRIP1, PALB2, RAD51D and RAD51C carriers in clinical practice. In this paper, we present a summary of the processes used to reach and agree on a consensus, as well as the key recommendations from the meeting.