Cadmium-induced inhibition of brain monoamine oxidase in the freshwater catfish

S. R. Katti,A. Sathyanesan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01982339

1984-06-01

Experientia

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Challenges in patient-centered germline testing delivery for veterans with advanced prostate cancer (APC).

Daniel H Kwon,Marissa McPhaul,Eliza Hearst,Saffanat Sumra,Carling Jade Ursem,Evan Justin Walker,Maren Theresa Scheuner,Sunny Wang,Rahul Raj Aggarwal,Franklin W. Huang,Jeffrey Belkora

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2024.42.4_suppl.71

IF: 45.3

2024-02-01

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:71 Background: In a quest to tailor care to tumor biology, oncologists now offer germline testing to all patients with APC. We explored the degree to which germline testing decisions reflect patient preferences about potential benefits and harms discussed by oncologists. Methods: We conducted a prospective qualitative study of consecutive patients with APC who were offered germline testing at an oncology visit at the San Francisco VA. We audio-recorded visits and conducted semi-structured interviews using a theory-informed guide with patients after their visit to understand their decision-making process for germline testing. We analyzed the interviews using the Critical Incident Technique to identify positive or negative deviations from well-informed, preference-based decisions. We also reviewed consent documentation in the electronic health record. Results: Of 61 patients approached, 30 completed interviews after their germline testing discussion. Mean age was 75y; 19 (63%) were White, 9 (30%) Black, and 2 (6%) Other race; and 13 (43%) were service-connected for APC. Twenty-six (87%) patients consented to germline testing; the primary reasons were altruistic (to help family and contribute to knowledge). Four patients (13%) declined testing, all primarily due to the fear of potential loss or reduction of service-connected benefits. All four patients reported they would reconsider testing if assured that these benefits would be protected regardless of test results. Of the four patients, two had initially consented to testing with their oncologist but later changed their minds and did not notify anyone. The two patients received germline testing when they underwent PSA testing, but they were not aware that they had germline testing performed. Both had negative test results, and they therefore did not experience threats to their service-connected benefits. Conclusions: Some Veterans with service-connected benefits for APC decline germline testing due to the fear of potential loss or reduction of these benefits, thereby foregoing potential treatment benefits. An advisory board is working with the Veterans Benefits Administration to protect service-connected benefits for these Veterans. In addition, a few Veterans may agree to germline testing with their oncologist, but then change their minds due to concerns surrounding service-connected benefits. From a quality improvement perspective, the experiences of the patients in this study who changed their minds counts as a near-miss. Although uptake of germline testing was high in this cohort, current workflows may need to be addressed to account for a change of heart, and further research is needed to understand root causes and identify possible remedies of the near-misses. Overall, our findings illustrate the importance of informed consent for germline testing to ensure that results are desired and valued by both oncologist and patient.

oncology
Remote delivery of cancer genetic testing in veterans with metastatic prostate cancer: A Million Veteran Program study.

Robert Bruce Montgomery,Julie Ann Lynch,Jessica Brown,Kara Noelle Maxwell,Nismeta Kabilovic,Katie Stoll,Julie Simon,Maria Kogan,Stacey Whitbourne,J. Michael Gaziano,Heather H. Cheng,Ruth Douglas Etzioni,Colin C. Pritchard

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2024.42.4_suppl.60

IF: 45.3

2024-02-01

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:60 Background: Germline pathogenic alterations are found in approximately 10% of men with metastatic prostate cancer (mPC) and can inform precision therapy, surveillance, and cancer prevention for family. National guidelines recommend germline genetic testing be offered to all men with mPC, yet uptake of testing in the community has been documented to be 6-12% with many barriers to testing. We conducted a study to determine uptake of testing using remote consenting and testing for veterans with mPC who had participated in the Veteran’s Administration Million Veteran Program (MVP). We wanted to know if remote testing could overcome limited point-of-care counseling and ordering to increase uptake of germline testing. Methods: This prospective study enrolled veterans who participated in MVP study with a diagnosis of mPC. Veterans were contacted by mail with an option to opt-out of further contact. Those who did not opt-out were mailed information regarding the study and received a follow-up phone call to establish interest in germline testing with a CLIA-level germline test (BROCA). Those expressing interest provided verbal informed consent and were mailed a saliva collection kit for a multigene cancer predisposition gene panel test (University of Washington). Results were disclosed by phone and mailed to the patient with genetic counseling support and was also sent to the oncology provider by email, phone or both. Two research coordinators and two part-time genetic counselors provided review of consenting, counseling and return of results. Results: As of September 17, 2023, 1952 veterans who were alive with an incident diagnosis of mPC were identified through MVP and did not opt out of further contact. Informational letters were sent to the home address of all eligible participants. 681 (22%) of veterans were reached and completed informed consent. All participants were then sent a saliva kit and 432 (63%) completed testing, with 23 tests currently pending. Among the participants, 70% were White, 21% were Black, 0.5% Asian and 8% unknown. Thirteen percent (53/409) were found to have a germline pathogenic variant. Conclusions: We evaluated uptake of germline testing using a remote, VA system-wide approach to identify and offer genetic testing for veterans with mPC with access and cost issues removed. We completed germline testing at rates significantly higher than those reported in the community with modest personnel requirements, while also reaching a more diverse population of patients. Remote genetic testing can improve uptake of testing in large integrated health care systems.

oncology
Internet-Based Germline Genetic Testing for Men With Metastatic Prostate Cancer

Heather H Cheng,Alexandra O Sokolova,Roman Gulati,Deborah Bowen,Sarah A Knerr,Nola Klemfuss,Petros Grivas,Andrew Hsieh,John K Lee,Michael T Schweizer,Todd Yezefski,Alicia Zhou,Evan Y Yu,Peter S Nelson,Bruce Montgomery

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/PO.22.00104

Abstract:Purpose: Germline mutations in DNA repair genes are present in approximately 10% of men with metastatic prostate cancer (mPC), and guidelines recommend genetic germline testing. Notable barriers exist, including access to genetic counseling, insurance coverage, and out-of-pocket costs. The GENTleMEN study was designed to determine the feasibility of an Internet-based, patient-driven germline genetic testing approach for men with mPC. Patients and methods: In this prospective cohort study, men with mPC provided informed consent via an Internet-based platform and completed a questionnaire including demographics and family cancer history. Supporting medical data were also collected. Genetic testing was performed using the Color Genomics 30-gene targeted panel of cancer predisposition genes on a mailed saliva sample. Men whose test results identified a germline pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant received results by phone or telehealth genetic counseling; other participants received results by email with an option for phone-based or telehealth genetic counseling. Results: As of August 18, 2021, 816 eligible men were consented, of whom 68% (551) completed genetic testing, and 8.7% (48 of 551) were found to carry a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant in a germline DNA repair gene: CHEK2 (17), BRCA2 (15), ATM (6), NBN1 (3), BRCA1 (2), PALB2 (2), PMS2 (2), and MSH6 (1). Participants were more likely to complete the testing process if they were non-Hispanic White, married, highly educated, or from a higher-income bracket. Conclusion: Here, we show the feasibility of delivering germline (inherited) genetic testing by a voluntary, patient-driven, Internet-based platform to men with mPC. Preliminary results show rates of germline DNA repair mutations, consistent with other cohorts. Although feasible for some, reduced steps for participation, more dedicated diverse outreach and participant support, and identification and addressing of additional barriers is needed to ensure equitable access and optimization.
Incidence of germline genetic testing in Veterans with breast cancer in the Veterans Health Administration.

Ahmad Sami Halwani,Vikas Patil,Richard Mcshinsky,Deborah Morreall,Kelli M Rasmussen,Chunyang Li,Zachary R. Burningham,Carolyn S. Menendez,Akiko Chiba,Haley Moss,Sarah Violet Colonna,Kerry G. Rowe,Michael J. Kelley

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2024.42.16_suppl.e13531

IF: 45.3

2024-05-31

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:e13531 Background: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has seen a 3-fold increase in breast cancer (BC) diagnoses in recent decades, 90% of which occur in women Veterans. While technological and biomedical advances have increased the availability and actionability of germline genetic testing (GGT), adoption in practice has been slow. The VA National Oncology Program (NOP) recommends that all Veterans with BC be offered GGT. The Making Advances in Mammography and Medical Options for Veterans Act of 2022 mandated that the VA perform a study of GGT in Veterans with BC, the initial results of which are reported here. Methods: Veterans diagnosed with BC between Jan 1, 2021 and Dec 31, 2022 were identified in the VA Cancer Registry System (VACRS) using site code C50 and excluding histology codes 95903, 96803, and 96993. Of those, Veterans receiving care for BC in the VA were defined as those having at least 2 visits within a year with VA hematology, oncology, radiation oncology, or surgery with codes C50.x, D05.x, Z17.x, Z19.x, or Z85.x. We retrieved clinical notes from these visits and used natural language processing (named entity recognition, entity linking) to identify and highlight relevant concepts to expedite chart review. We randomly selected 200 Veterans, loading their notes into a custom-designed chart review application. A team of 5 clinical subject-matter experts reviewed these notes for evidence of GGT. Each Veteran’s notes were reviewed independently by 2 reviewers. Disagreements were adjudicated by the whole team. Results: 1505 Veterans met diagnostic criteria in VACRS; of these, 1201 met utilization criteria and constituted the study population. Table summarizes demographic characteristics. Inter-annotator agreement was 85.5%. Of the 200 Veterans whose charts were reviewed, 118 (59%) were offered testing, referred to a genetic counseling service, or otherwise had evidence of testing found upon chart review, while 61 (31%) had no such evidence. Ten patients (5%) were deemed ineligible for GGT based on practice guidelines at the time, and chart review found that 11 (6%) had no evidence of clinical care within the VA. Among 189 seen by a VA oncology clinician, 118 (62.4%) had or were offered genetic services. Conclusions: Most Veterans with breast cancer are offered germline genetic testing. Future work will evaluate ongoing efforts to improve adherence to VA NOP guidelines to ensure that every Veteran with breast cancer can access germline genetic testing. [Table: see text]

oncology
Clinical Implications of Germline Testing in Newly Diagnosed Prostate Cancer

Stacy Loeb,Veda N Giri

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2020.11.011

Abstract:Context: Germline testing (GT) is increasingly impacting prostate cancer (PCa) management and screening, with direct effects in urology, medical oncology, and radiation oncology. The majority of testing indications and recommendations center on men with metastatic disease, although guidelines now encompass newly diagnosed, early-stage PCa and entail assessment of personal history, pathologic features, and family history to determine eligibility for testing. Objective: To describe current guidelines on GT for men with PCa and the impact on management. An additional objective was to review the literature on current uptake of GT across practice settings. Evidence acquisition: A nonsystematic review was performed of current guidelines on GT in PCa from professional societies and consensus conferences, detailing supporting evidence for these recommendations. This was supplemented by a literature review of uptake of GT and precision medicine in practice. Evidence synthesis: Multiple guidelines and consensus panels recommend GT for men with metastatic PCa. Guidelines endorse BRCA2 testing in metastatic PCa because of strong evidence for PCa risk, aggressiveness, and PARP inhibitor candidacy. Testing of additional DNA repair genes in metastatic disease is also endorsed across guidelines. Immunotherapy with pembrolizumab is an option in some guidelines for men with DNA mismatch repair deficiency. In localized disease, GT is recommended on the basis of histologic features and family history; criteria vary between guidelines. GT for localized disease informs hereditary cancer risk and will probably impact future PCa management. Practice gaps exist regarding utilization of GT. Conclusions: Germline evaluation is increasingly important in the management of men with metastatic PCa and may also affect the prognosis for men with localized disease. The presence of germline mutations has important hereditary cancer implications for men and their families. Uptake of germline evaluation may be underutilized in some practice settings, so strategies for optimization are required. Patient summary: Patients with prostate cancer should talk to their doctor about the pros and cons of genetic testing, with attention to family history and cancer features. Genetic testing can have important implications for treatment, cancer screening, and family cancer risk.
Germline genetic testing for inherited prostate cancer in practice: Implications for genetic testing, precision therapy, and cascade testing

Veda N. Giri,Sarah E. Hegarty,Colette Hyatt,Erin O'Leary,John Garcia,Karen E. Knudsen,William K. Kelly,Leonard G. Gomella

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/pros.23739

2018-11-18

The Prostate

Abstract:BACKGROUND: Genetic testing capability and guidelines are rapidly expanding to assess inherited prostate cancer (PCA). Clinical genetic data from multigene testing can provide insights into the germline pathogenic variant (PV) spectrum and correlates in men with PCA unselected for metastatic disease to optimize identification of men for genetic evaluation and management.METHODS: A retrospective cross-sectional analysis was conducted of de-identified clinical genetic testing data from a large commercial genetic testing laboratory in the US. ICD-10 claims codes were used to identify men with PCA, along with family history data. Gleason score was abstracted from test request forms. Overall PV rate among men with PCA was estimated, along with PVs in DNA repair genes. Family history and Gleason score association to germline DNA repair PVs was assessed using Fisher's exact test with correction for false-discovery.RESULTS: As of August 2017, genetic results were available on 1328 men with PCA. Overall PV rate was 15.6%, with 10.9% of PV in DNA repair genes. PVs were most commonly identified in BRCA2 (4.5%), CHEK2 (2.2%), ATM (1.8%), and BRCA1 (1.1%). Breast cancer family history was significantly associated with germline DNA repair PVs (OR 1.89, [95%CI 1.33, 2.68], P = 0.003). Among men with Gleason score>= 6 (n = 706), Gleason> = 8 was significantly associated with DNA repair PVs (OR 1.85 [95%CI 1.22, 2.80], P = 0.004).CONCLUSIONS: A substantial proportion of men with PCA unselected for metastatic disease carry germline DNA repair PVs. Breast cancer family history and high Gleason score are important predictors to identify men with PCA who may carry germline DNA repair PVs. Our findings support current NCCN guidelines and have implications for genetic assessment, therapeutic management, and cascade testing for men with PCA and their families.
Retrospective review of compliance with guideline-directed germline testing in microsatellite instability-high colorectal cancer treated at the Veterans Health Administration.

Karly Williams Silva,Stacey A. Cohen,M. Carmen Frias Kletecka,George Ioannou,Deniz Aslan,Daniel Jacob Becker,Avi Kenny,Robert Bruce Montgomery

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2024.42.3_suppl.86

IF: 45.3

2024-01-20

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:86 Background: Lynch syndrome (LS) is an autosomal dominant inherited cancer syndrome that confers an increased risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). As clinical and history features under-recognize LS cases (3-5% of CRC), universal screening of CRCs for LS is recommended. Patients whose CRCs are mismatch repair protein deficient (dMMR) and/or microsatellite instability high (MSI-H) are recommended to have subsequent genetics evaluation to screen for germline mutations. Confirmed LS changes cancer surveillance recommendations for affected patients and their relatives. Within Veterans Health Administration (VHA), GT is ordered by genetic counselors at genomic medicine telehealth centers (GMTC), after initial consultation. We aim to quantify rates at which CRC patients treated at the VHA complete germline testing (GT) when indicated. Methods: The electronic health records (EHRs) of VHA patients with known dMMR/MSI-H CRC were reviewed. Cases were extracted from both Veterans Affairs (VA) Puget Sound and referral VA MSI testing laboratories. Surgical pathology reports and clinical documentation were reviewed in Joint Longitudinal Viewer (JLV) to determine if GT was indicated and reason for non-testing, if not performed. Patients with known LS prior to development of CRC were excluded, and patients with dMMR in MLH1 or MSI-H with concurrent BRAFV600 mutation and/or MLH1 hypermethylation were considered to have sporadic CRC. Results: Of 110 patients with abnormal tumor LS screening; 39 (36%) patients’ tumor tissue underwent IHC for dMMR, 16 (14%) underwent PCR for MSI, and 55 (50%) had both. 45 (41%) patients were classified as somatic MSI-H. 65 (59%) patients met criteria for referral for GMTC and GT. Of these 65, 49 ultimately did not undergo GT and 16 did, which confirmed 4 cases of LS and revealed 1 variant of uncertain significance in the MLH1 gene. Reasons for non-testing were: 7 (14%) declined all cancer testing and treatment after CRC diagnosis or were lost to follow-up/declined establishment of cancer care, 3 (6%) declined referral to GMTC, 14 (29%) accepted referral to GMTC but never had consultation, 7 (14%) accepted referral to GMTC but declined GT when offered, and 18 (37%) were never offered GMTC referral or GT. Conclusions: A majority of dMMR/MSI-H cases with an indication for GT were referred for genetic counseling, but only a small subset completed testing. This analysis identified multiple areas for improvement, including a lack of recognition by providers for the need for GT, and lack of completion of testing by patients at multiple levels. Further evaluation of VHA-specific barriers is needed to improve the quality of delivered care.

oncology
Implementation of Germline Testing for Prostate Cancer: Philadelphia Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2019

Veda N Giri,Karen E Knudsen,William K Kelly,Heather H Cheng,Kathleen A Cooney,Michael S Cookson,William Dahut,Scott Weissman,Howard R Soule,Daniel P Petrylak,Adam P Dicker,Saud H AlDubayan,Amanda E Toland,Colin C Pritchard,Curtis A Pettaway,Mary B Daly,James L Mohler,J Kellogg Parsons,Peter R Carroll,Robert Pilarski,Amie Blanco,Ashley Woodson,Alanna Rahm,Mary-Ellen Taplin,Thomas J Polascik,Brian T Helfand,Colette Hyatt,Alicia K Morgans,Felix Feng,Michael Mullane,Jacqueline Powers,Raoul Concepcion,Daniel W Lin,Richard Wender,James Ryan Mark,Anthony Costello,Arthur L Burnett,Oliver Sartor,William B Isaacs,Jianfeng Xu,Jeffrey Weitzel,Gerald L Andriole,Himisha Beltran,Alberto Briganti,Lindsey Byrne,Anne Calvaresi,Thenappan Chandrasekar,David Y T Chen,Robert B Den,Albert Dobi,E David Crawford,James Eastham,Scott Eggener,Matthew L Freedman,Marc Garnick,Patrick T Gomella,Nathan Handley,Mark D Hurwitz,Joseph Izes,R Jeffrey Karnes,Costas Lallas,Lucia Languino,Stacy Loeb,Ana Maria Lopez,Kevin R Loughlin,Grace Lu-Yao,S Bruce Malkowicz,Mark Mann,Patrick Mille,Martin M Miner,Todd Morgan,Jose Moreno,Lorelei Mucci,Ronald E Myers,Sarah M Nielsen,Brock O'Neil,Wayne Pinover,Peter Pinto,Wendy Poage,Ganesh V Raj,Timothy R Rebbeck,Charles Ryan,Howard Sandler,Matthew Schiewer,E Michael D Scott,Brittany Szymaniak,William Tester,Edouard J Trabulsi,Neha Vapiwala,Evan Y Yu,Charnita Zeigler-Johnson,Leonard G Gomella,Veda N. Giri,Karen E. Knudsen,William K. Kelly,Heather H. Cheng,Kathleen A. Cooney,Michael S. Cookson,Howard R. Soule,Daniel P. Petrylak,Adam P. Dicker,Saud H. AlDubayan,Amanda E. Toland,Colin C. Pritchard,Curtis A. Pettaway,Mary B. Daly,James L. Mohler,J. Kellogg Parsons,Peter R. Carroll,Thomas J. Polascik,Brian T. Helfand,Alicia K. Morgans,Daniel W. Lin,Arthur L. Burnett,William B. Isaacs,Gerald L. Andriole,Lyndsey Byrne,David Y. T. Chen,Robert B. Den,E. David Crawford,Matthew L. Freedman,Partrick T. Gomella,Mark D. Hurwitz,R. Jeffrey Karnes,Kevin R. Loughlin,S. Bruce Malkowicz,Martin M. Miner,Ronald E. Myers,Sarah M. Nielsen,Ganesh V. Raj,Timothy R. Rebbeck,E. Michael D. Scott,Edouard J. Trabulsi,Evan Y. Yu,Leonard G. Gomella

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.20.00046

IF: 45.3

2020-06-11

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:PURPOSE Germline testing (GT) is a central feature of prostate cancer (PCA) treatment, management, and hereditary cancer assessment. Critical needs include optimized multigene testing strategies that incorporate evolving genetic data, consistency in GT indications and management, and alternate genetic evaluation models that address the rising demand for genetic services. METHODS A multidisciplinary consensus conference that included experts, stakeholders, and national organization leaders was convened in response to current practice challenges and to develop a genetic implementation framework. Evidence review informed questions using the modified Delphi model. The final framework included criteria with strong (> 75%) agreement (Recommend) or moderate (50% to 74%) agreement (Consider). RESULTS Large germline panels and somatic testing were recommended for metastatic PCA. Reflex testing—initial testing of priority genes followed by expanded testing—was suggested for multiple scenarios. Metastatic disease or family history suggestive of hereditary PCA was recommended for GT. Additional family history and pathologic criteria garnered moderate consensus. Priority genes to test for metastatic disease treatment included BRCA2, BRCA1, and mismatch repair genes, with broader testing, such as ATM , for clinical trial eligibility. BRCA2 was recommended for active surveillance discussions. Screening starting at age 40 years or 10 years before the youngest PCA diagnosis in a family was recommended for BRCA2 carriers, with consideration in HOXB13, BRCA1, ATM , and mismatch repair carriers. Collaborative (point-of-care) evaluation models between health care and genetic providers was endorsed to address the genetic counseling shortage. The genetic evaluation framework included optimal pretest informed consent, post-test discussion, cascade testing, and technology-based approaches. CONCLUSION This multidisciplinary, consensus-driven PCA genetic implementation framework provides novel guidance to clinicians and patients tailored to the precision era. Multiple research, education, and policy needs remain of importance.

oncology
Therapeutic Implications of Germline Testing in Patients With Advanced Cancers

Zsofia K Stadler,Anna Maio,Debyani Chakravarty,Yelena Kemel,Margaret Sheehan,Erin Salo-Mullen,Kaitlyn Tkachuk,Christopher J Fong,Bastien Nguyen,Amanda Erakky,Karen Cadoo,Ying Liu,Maria I Carlo,Alicia Latham,Hongxin Zhang,Ritika Kundra,Shaleigh Smith,Jesse Galle,Carol Aghajanian,Nadeem Abu-Rustum,Anna Varghese,Eileen M O'Reilly,Michael Morris,Wassim Abida,Michael Walsh,Alexander Drilon,Gowtham Jayakumaran,Ahmet Zehir,Marc Ladanyi,Ozge Ceyhan-Birsoy,David B Solit,Nikolaus Schultz,Michael F Berger,Diana Mandelker,Luis A Diaz Jr,Kenneth Offit,Mark E Robson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.20.03661

2021-08-20

Abstract:Purpose: Tumor mutational profiling is increasingly performed in patients with advanced cancer. We determined the extent to which germline mutation profiling guides therapy selection in patients with advanced cancer. Methods: Patients with cancer undergoing tumor genomic profiling were prospectively consented for germline cancer predisposition gene analysis (2015-2019). In patients harboring germline likely pathogenic or pathogenic (LP/P) alterations, therapeutic actionability was classified using a precision oncology knowledge base. Patients with metastatic or recurrent cancer receiving germline genotype-directed therapy were determined. Results: Among 11,947 patients across > 50 malignancies, 17% (n = 2,037) harbored a germline LP/P variant. By oncology knowledge base classification, 9% (n = 1042) had an LP/P variant in a gene with therapeutic implications (4% level 1; 4% level 3B; < 1% level 4). BRCA1/2 variants accounted for 42% of therapeutically actionable findings, followed by CHEK2 (13%), ATM (12%), mismatch repair genes (11%), and PALB2 (5%). When limited to the 9,079 patients with metastatic or recurrent cancer, 8% (n = 710) harbored level 1 or 3B genetic findings and 3.2% (n = 289) received germline genotype-directed therapy. Germline genotype-directed therapy was received by 61% and 18% of metastatic cancer patients with level 1 and level 3B findings, respectively, and by 54% of BRCA1/2, 75% of mismatch repair, 43% of PALB2, 35% of RAD51C/D, 24% of BRIP1, and 19% of ATM carriers. Of BRCA1/2 patients receiving a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor, 45% (84 of 188) had tumors other than breast or ovarian cancer, wherein the drug, at time of delivery, was delivered in an investigational setting. Conclusion: In a pan-cancer analysis, 8% of patients with advanced cancer harbored a germline variant with therapeutic actionability with 40% of these patients receiving germline genotype-directed treatment. Germline sequence analysis is additive to tumor sequence analysis for therapy selection and should be considered for all patients with advanced cancer.
Genetic testing for hereditary prostate cancer: Current status and limitations

Jun Tu Zhen,Jamil Syed,Kevin Anh Nguyen,Michael S. Leapman,Neeraj Agarwal,Karina Brierley,Xavier Llor,Erin Hofstatter,Brian Shuch

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.31316

IF: 6.9209

2018-04-18

Cancer

Abstract:A significant proportion of prostate cancer diagnoses may be associated with a strong hereditary component. Men who have multiple single-gene polymorphisms and a family history of prostate cancer have a significantly greater risk of developing prostate cancer. Numerous single-gene alterations have been confirmed to increase the risk of prostate cancer. These include breast cancer genes 1 and 2 (BRCA1 and BRCA2, respectively), mutL homolog 1 (MLH1), mutS homologs 2 and 6 (MSH2 and MSH6, respectively), postmeiotic segregation increased 2 (PMS2), homeobox B13 (HOXB13), checkpoint kinase 2 (CHEK2), nibrin (NBN), BRCA1-interacting protein C-terminal helicase 1 (BRIP1), and ataxia telangiectasia mutated (ATM). Currently, there are no uniform guidelines on the definition of hereditary prostate cancer and genetic testing. With the advent of next-generation sequencing, which is capable of testing multiple genes simultaneously, and the approval of olaparib for BRCA1/BRCA2 or ATM-mutated, metastatic, castrate-resistant prostate cancer, it is being recognized that the results of genetic testing have an impact on therapeutic strategies. In this review, the authors examine the role of genetic counseling and testing, the challenges of insurance coverage for testing, the available germline and somatic testing panels, and the complexity of each testing method and its implications. Cancer 2018. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

oncology
Racial Differences in Germline Genetic Testing Completion Among Males With Pancreatic, Breast, or Metastatic Prostate Cancers

Jeffrey W. Shevach,Danielle Candelieri-Surette,Julie A. Lynch,Rebecca A. Hubbard,Patrick R. Alba,Karen Glanz,Ravi B. Parikh,Kara N. Maxwell

DOI: https://doi.org/10.6004/jnccn.2023.7105

IF: 12.6934

2024-04-17

Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network

Abstract:Background: Germline genetic testing is a vital component of guideline-recommended cancer care for males with pancreatic, breast, or metastatic prostate cancers. We sought to determine whether there were racial disparities in germline genetic testing completion in this population. Patients and Methods: This retrospective cohort study included non-Hispanic White and Black males with incident pancreatic, breast, or metastatic prostate cancers between January 1, 2019, and September 30, 2021. Two nationwide cohorts were examined: (1) commercially insured individuals in an administrative claims database, and (2) Veterans receiving care in the Veterans Health Administration. One-year germline genetic testing rates were estimated by using Kaplan-Meier methods. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to test the association between race and genetic testing completion. Causal mediation analyses were performed to investigate whether socioeconomic variables contributed to associations between race and germline testing. Results: Our cohort consisted of 7,894 males (5,142 commercially insured; 2,752 Veterans). One-year testing rates were 18.0% (95% CI, 16.8%–19.2%) in commercially insured individuals and 14.2% (95% CI, 11.5%–15.0%) in Veterans. Black race was associated with a lower hazard of testing among commercially insured individuals (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.73; 95% CI, 0.58–0.91; P =.005) but not among Veterans (aHR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.75–1.32; P =.960). In commercially insured individuals, income (aHR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.86–0.96) and net worth (aHR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.86–0.98) mediated racial disparities, whereas education (aHR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.94–1.01) did not. Conclusions: Overall rates of guideline-recommended genetic testing are low in males with pancreatic, breast, or metastatic prostate cancers. Racial disparities in genetic testing among males exist in a commercially insured population, mediated by net worth and household income; these disparities are not seen in the equal-access Veterans Health Administration. Alleviating financial and access barriers may mitigate racial disparities in genetic testing.

oncology
Parents' and patients' perspectives, experiences, and preferences for germline genetic or genomic testing of children with cancer: A systematic review

Jacqueline D Hunter,Kate Hetherington,Eliza Courtney,Yasmin Christensen,Noemi Fuentes-Bolanos,Kanika Bhatia,Michelle Peate

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gim.2024.101197

Abstract:Purpose: Germline testing in pediatric cancer presents opportunities and challenges. Understanding family perspectives, experiences, and preferences will optimize integration into routine care. Methods: Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, we searched 4 databases for studies exploring perspectives, experiences, and preferences of parents/caregivers and/or patients regarding germline testing of children with cancer. Qualitative and quantitative data were extracted, organized, and summarized by research question and themes. Results: We identified 2286 unique articles, of which 24 were included. Interest in and uptake of testing was high. Families were motivated by altruism and a desire for inheritance/causation information. Testing barriers included psychological concerns, timing of the testing approach if offered at diagnosis or in a high-risk cancer setting and privacy/discrimination. Testing experiences highlighted challenges yet also positive impacts, with results providing psychological relief and informing proactive decision making. Timing preferences varied; however, allowing time to adjust to a new diagnosis was a common theme. Most wanted to receive as many germline sequencing-related results as possible. Conclusion: Findings underscore the importance of integrating germline analyses into pediatric cancer care with flexibility and support for families facing challenges. Where possible, consent should be provided at a time that suits each family's situation with access to information aligning with their needs and preferences. Prospero: CRD42023444890.
Poor compliance with germline testing recommendations in colorectal cancer patients undergoing molecular residual disease testing

Suzanne Schrock-Kelley,Vivienne Souter,Michael J Hall,Youbao Sha,Urmi Sengupta,Adam C ElNaggar,Minetta C Liu,Jeffrey N Weitzel

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43856-024-00608-6

2024-09-30

Abstract:Background: Approximately 15% of colorectal cancers (CRCs) are associated with germline mutations. There is increasing adoption of DNA-based assays for molecular residual disease (MRD) and growing evidence supporting its clinical utility, particularly for CRC by oncologists in the U.S. We assessed the uptake of germline multi-gene panel testing (MGPT) for hereditary cancer in CRC patients receiving MRD analyses in community oncology settings. Methods: This retrospective study included 80 patients receiving care for CRC through community oncology practices who were referred for MRD testing at a commercial laboratory (January-March 2022). Clinical data, including test requisition forms, pathology reports, and clinical notes were reviewed. Documentation of tumor microsatellite instability and/or immunohistochemical (IHC) testing for mismatch repair (MMR) deficiency, age of CRC diagnosis, family history of cancer, and any order or recommendation for MGPT were assessed. Results: Overall, 5/80 (6.3%) patients in the study have documented germline MGPT; 65/80 (81.3%) patients have documented MMR testing of their colorectal tumor. Among the 5 cases with abnormal MMR IHC, 2 have MGPT. Of the 33 patients meeting the 2021 National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) criteria for genetic/familial high-risk assessment, only 2 have MGPT. Conclusions: Our real-world data suggest that many CRC patients receiving MRD testing and meeting NCCN (v. 2021) criteria for germline MGPT may not be receiving evaluation beyond routine MMR status. Process and educational improvements are needed in community health settings to increase access and uptake of germline testing among CRC patients regardless of age at diagnosis or MMR status.
Feasibility and Clinical Utility of Reporting Hereditary Cancer Predisposition Pathogenic Variants Identified in Research Germline Sequencing: A Prospective Interventional Study

Megan L Hutchcraft,Shulin Zhang,Nan Lin,Justine C Pickarski,Elizabeth A Belcher,Sainan Wei,Thèrése Bocklage,Rachel W Miller,John L Villano,Michael J Cavnar,Joseph Kim,Susanne M Arnold,Frederick R Ueland,Jill M Kolesar,Megan L. Hutchcraft,Justine C. Pickarski,Elizabeth A. Belcher,Rachel W. Miller,John L. Villano,Michael J. Cavnar,Susanne M. Arnold,Frederick R. Ueland,Jill M. Kolesar

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/po.23.00266

2024-01-01

JCO Precision Oncology

Abstract:PURPOSE Patients with cancer frequently undergo research-grade germline sequencing but clinically actionable results are not routinely disclosed. The objective of this study is to evaluate the feasibility of reporting clinically relevant secondary findings (SF) identified in germline research sequencing using the institutional molecular tumor board (MTB) and the treating oncology physician. METHODS This prospective, interventional cohort study enrolled Total Cancer Care participants with any cancer diagnosis at a single institution. Patients underwent research-grade germline whole-exome sequencing, with bioinformatic analysis in a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments–certified laboratory to verify pathogenic/likely pathogenic germline variants (PGVs) in any American College of Medical Genomics and Genetics SF v2.0 genes. After a protocol modification in consenting patients, the MTB reported PGVs to treating oncology physicians with recommendations for referral to a licensed genetic counselor and clinical confirmatory testing. RESULTS Of the 781 enrolled participants, 32 (4.1%) harbored cancer predisposition PGVs, 24 (3.1%) were heterozygous carriers of an autosomal recessive cancer predisposition syndrome, and 14 (1.8%) had other hereditary disease PGVs. Guideline-directed testing would have missed 37.5% (12/32) of the inherited cancer predisposition PGVs, which included BRCA1, BRCA2, MSH6, SDHAF2, SDHB, and TP53 variants. Three hundred fifteen participants consented to reporting results; results for all living patients were reported to the clinical team with half referred to a licensed genetic counselor. There was concordance between all research variants identified in patients (n = 9) who underwent clinical confirmatory sequencing. CONCLUSION MTB reporting of research-grade germline sequencing to the clinical oncology team is feasible. Over a third of PGVs identified using a universal testing strategy would have been missed by guideline-based approach, suggesting a role for expanding germline testing.

oncology
Sociodemographic and Clinical Characteristics Associated with Genetic Testing among Cancer Survivors: Evidence from Three Cancer Registries

Young-Rock Hong,Ruixuan Wang,Guanming Chen,Mishal Khan,Susan Vadaparampil,Jiang Bian,Thomas J George,Dejana Braithwaite

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000540341

Public Health Genomics

Abstract:Introduction: Genetic tests, including germline and tumor (somatic) testing, can optimize the clinical care and outcomes for cancer patients and their family members. However, evidence on cancer patients' use of genetic testing and discussions about it with healthcare providers is limited. Methods: Study participants included cancer survivors aged 18 or older, drawn from the 2021 Health Information and National Trends Survey (HINTS)-Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) linked database, which comprises three US cancer registries: Iowa, New Mexico, and the Greater Bay Area. Sociodemographic factors (e.g., age, sex, income, education) at the time of the survey and clinical characteristics (e.g., cancer site, stage) at the time of diagnosis were compared based on self-reported genetic testing status and provider discussions, using survey design-adjusted analysis. Results: The weighted study sample comprised 415,978 cancer survivors with a mean age of 70.5 years at the time of the survey. Overall, 17.0% reported having germline testing, 8.5% having tumor testing, and 8.6% discussing tumor testing with their healthcare providers. Higher proportions of germline genetic testing were observed among survivors under age 65 at the time of the survey, females, holding college degrees, and with private insurance coverage compared to their respective counterparts - males, aged 65 or above when surveyed, with lower educational attainment, and with public insurance or uninsured. The proportion of those who reported tumor testing was greater for those diagnosed in recent years (2015-2017 vs. before 2002). Regarding clinical characteristics, survivors with ovarian and breast cancers had a 7.0-36.4% higher prevalence of both testing compared to those with other cancer types lacking germline indication. More cancer survivors diagnosed at distant stages (vs. regional) or between 2015 and 2017 (vs. 2003-2010) reported having provider discussions about tumor testing. Conclusion: Findings showed that the highest reports of germline testing were among young female cancer survivors and those with higher education and private insurance. Survivors diagnosed in recent years or with advanced-stage disease were more likely to report discussing tumor testing with providers. Further research is warranted to better understand the barriers and educational needs of cancer patients, caregivers, and providers to optimize genetic testing strategies.
Clinically relevant genomic alterations identified by targeted exome sequencing in U.S. veterans with prostate cancer.

Eman Dadashian,Michael Nakazawa,Neil Rohit Parikh,Nathisha Kalpage,Nicholas George Nickols,Matthew Rettig

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2020.38.15_suppl.e17599

IF: 45.3

2020-05-20

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:e17599 Background: Amongst male United States Veterans, prostate cancer accounts for one third of cancer diagnoses and is the second leading cause of cancer death. Prostate cancers in the Veteran population may have differing frequencies of clinically relevant genomic alterations than the general population owing to chemical exposures, military service, or other unknown factors. Veterans, however, have been underrepresented in large-scale prostate cancer sequencing cohorts to date. Methods: Archival or fresh prostate cancer tissue from Veterans cared for by our team within the VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System (a VA Prostate Cancer Center of Excellence) undergo targeted sequencing as part of routine clinical care through the VA Precision Oncology Program. Sequencing covers over 181 genes frequently mutated in cancers. Prostate cancers from 81 Veterans (76 primary tumors, 5 metastases) have been sequenced through the Personalis ACE CancerPlus platform. Results: 43% of Veterans had primary tumors with clinically relevant genomic alterations, including 6.2% with activating mutations in MAPK pathway members (KRAS, ERBB2, or BRAF), 3.7% with somatic mutations in DDR genes (BRCA2 or ATR), 7.3% with mutations in TP53 or RB1, 4.9% in APC, 1.2% in the WNT pathway (CTNNB1), 3.7% with mutations in the PI3K/AKT pathway (PIK3R1 or AKT1), 3.7% with PTEN deletions, and 22.2% had alterations involving an AR regulated gene (SLC45A3 or TMPRSS). Of the five metastatic tumors sequenced, one had a mutation in TP53 and another had an ETS gene fusion detected. Half of the Veterans who underwent tumor sequencing consented for screening for, or enrollment on, active clinical trials at VA Greater LA. Conclusions: Large-scale sequencing of prostate cancers within VA is feasible and may facilitate enrollment in precision oncology trials specifically designed for Veterans. These data suggest that clinically relevant genomic alterations within the primary tumors may differ between Veterans and the general population; larger data sets along with more robust sequencing platforms are required for clarification.

oncology
Germline Testing in Patients With Breast Cancer: ASCO–Society of Surgical Oncology Guideline

Isabelle Bedrosian,Mark R. Somerfield,Maria Isabel Achatz,Judy C. Boughey,Giuseppe Curigliano,Sue Friedman,Wendy K. Kohlmann,Allison W. Kurian,Christine Laronga,Filipa Lynce,Barbara S. Norquist,Jennifer K. Plichta,Patricia Rodriguez,Payal D. Shah,Marc Tischkowitz,Marie Wood,Siddhartha Yadav,Katherine Yao,Mark E. Robson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.23.02225

IF: 45.3

2024-01-06

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:PURPOSE To develop recommendations for germline mutation testing for patients with breast cancer. METHODS An ASCO–Society of Surgical Oncology (SSO) panel convened to develop recommendations based on a systematic review and formal consensus process. RESULTS Forty-seven articles met eligibility criteria for the germline mutation testing recommendations; 18 for the genetic counseling recommendations. RECOMMENDATIONS BRCA1/ 2 mutation testing should be offered to all newly diagnosed patients with breast cancer ≤65 years and select patients >65 years based on personal history, family history, ancestry, or eligibility for poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor therapy. All patients with recurrent breast cancer who are candidates for PARP inhibitor therapy should be offered BRCA1/ 2 testing, regardless of family history. BRCA1/ 2 testing should be offered to women who develop a second primary cancer in the ipsilateral or contralateral breast. For patients with prior history of breast cancer and without active disease, testing should be offered to patients diagnosed ≤65 years and selectively in patients diagnosed after 65 years, if it will inform personal and family risk. Testing for high-penetrance cancer susceptibility genes beyond BRCA1/ 2 should be offered to those with supportive family histories; testing for moderate-penetrance genes may be offered if necessary to inform personal and family cancer risk. Patients should be provided enough pretest information for informed consent; those with pathogenic variants should receive individualized post-test counseling. Variants of uncertain significance should not impact management, and patients with such variants should be followed for reclassification. Referral to providers experienced in clinical cancer genetics may help facilitate patient selection and interpretation of expanded testing, and provide counseling of individuals without pathogenic germline variants but with significant family history. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines .

oncology
Point/Counterpoint: Is It Time for Universal Germline Genetic Testing for all GI Cancers?

Heather Hampel,Matthew B. Yurgelun

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.21.02764

IF: 45.3

2022-06-03

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:Use of germline genetic testing among patients with cancer is increasing because of (1) the availability of multigene panel tests that include multiple cancer susceptibility genes in a single test, (2) decreased costs of these tests and improvements in insurance coverage, and (3) US Food and Drug Administration–approval of genotype-directed therapies such as poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors for individuals with certain cancers and pathogenic germline variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 (with possible benefits with other genes in the homologous repair deficiency pathway). In addition, National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines have already endorsed germline genetic testing for all patients with certain cancer types (epithelial ovarian cancer, exocrine pancreatic cancer, and high-grade/metastatic prostate cancer), regardless of age or personal/family history of cancer. Herein, we debate the pros and cons of offering germline multigene panel testing to all patients diagnosed with any GI cancer. The authors agree that it may just be a matter of time before germline multigene panel testing is offered to all patients with cancer; however, this article will highlight some of the benefits, risks, and limitations of this approach so that research can help fill some of the gaps to ensure that genetic medicine continues to be implemented in ways that improve real-world patient care and outcomes.

oncology
CEREBRAL HYPONATREMIA SECONDARY TO EXCESS SECRETION OF ANTIDIURETIC HORMONE IN A PATIENT WITH HERPES SIMPLEX ENCEPHALITIS.

R. Rovit,M. Sigler

Abstract:
Abstract 3372: Clinical genetic testing results in metastatic prostate cancer patients

Taylor Crawford,Emanuel Barrett,Tara Al-Saleem,Maliha Tayeb,Heather Symecko,Caitlin Orr,Vivek Narayan,Samuel Takvorian,Ravi B. Parikh,Yu-Ning Wong,Kyle Robinson,Lisa B. Aiello,Catherine Wolfe,Derek Mann,Kelsey Spielman,Susan M. Domchek,Kara N. Maxwell

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7445.am2024-3372

IF: 11.2

2024-03-24

Cancer Research

Abstract:Background: A proportion of prostate cancers (PCa) are hereditary, driven by likely pathogenic/pathogenic germline variants (PGVs) in DNA repair genes. PGVs in BRCA2 contribute to aggressive prostate cancer biology and overall poorer survival. Genetic testing and targeted sequencing panels help identify PGV carriers who are susceptible to aggressive PCa and may be candidates for targeted therapy with PARP inhibitors. Prior research suggested a high rate of 10-20% of metastatic PCa (mPCa) patients have PGVs in DNA repair genes; however, many of these studies reported highly selected research cohorts. The real-world rate of DNA repair PGVs and whether any genotype-phenotype correlations exist in broader, more racially diverse clinical populations are not well understood. Patients and Methods: We studied two prospective cohorts of males with PCa who presented for genetic testing due to meeting NCCN personal history genetic testing criteria for prostate cancer (metastatic or high risk/very high risk localized). We report PGV frequencies of mPCa patients who underwent genetic testing in a point of care model at the Basser Center within Penn Medicine (Penn-POC, n=596), and a cancer genetics practice at the Corporal Michael Crescenz VA Medical Center in Philadelphia (VA-GT, n = 171). PGVs were identified in ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, EPCAM, HOXB13, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, NBN, PMS2, TP53. Results: The Penn-POC and VA-GT cohort included 437 (73.3%) and 59 (34.5%) self-identified white patients, respectively, and 121 (20.3%) and 107 (62.6%) self-identified black patients, respectively. In the Penn-POC and VA-GT cohorts, 7.2% and 7.6% patients were found to carry a PGV, respectively, and 11.9% and 18.1% of patients had variants of uncertain significance (VUS), respectively. The most common PGVs in the Penn-POC cohort were in BRCA2 (2.2%), ATM (1.9%), and BRCA1 (1.3%). The most common PGVs in the VA-GT cohort were in BRCA2 (2.9%), ATM (1.1%), and CHEK2 (1.2%). PGV rates were not statistically different between self-identified white and black patients in either cohort (Penn-POC p= 0.4036; VA-GT p=0. 0.4061). Overall PGV frequencies between the Penn-POC and VA-GT cohorts are not statistically different. There is a correlation between carrier status and age at diagnosis with a significant difference between carriers and non-carriers (p=0.0433) as well as with family history of first degree relatives with PCa (p=0.0184). However, there was not a significant correlation between carrier status and clinical stage at diagnosis, Gleason grade group, or other clinical variables. Conclusions: We report a lower rate of DNA repair PGVs in two prospectively ascertained, racially diverse cohorts of mPCa patients, approximately 7%, compared to the previously reported rates of 10-20%. Our results suggest age and family history, but not other pathological variables are clinical predictors for carrying a PGV in mPCa patients. Citation Format: Taylor Crawford, Emanuel Barrett, Tara Al-Saleem, Maliha Tayeb, Heather Symecko, Caitlin Orr, Vivek Narayan, Samuel Takvorian, Ravi B. Parikh, Yu-Ning Wong, Kyle Robinson, Lisa B. Aiello, Catherine Wolfe, Derek Mann, Kelsey Spielman, Susan M. Domchek, Kara N. Maxwell. Clinical genetic testing results in metastatic prostate cancer patients [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2024; Part 1 (Regular s); 2024 Apr 5-10; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(6_Suppl) nr 3372.

oncology

Cadmium-induced inhibition of brain monoamine oxidase in the freshwater catfish

Challenges in patient-centered germline testing delivery for veterans with advanced prostate cancer (APC).

Remote delivery of cancer genetic testing in veterans with metastatic prostate cancer: A Million Veteran Program study.

Internet-Based Germline Genetic Testing for Men With Metastatic Prostate Cancer

Incidence of germline genetic testing in Veterans with breast cancer in the Veterans Health Administration.

Clinical Implications of Germline Testing in Newly Diagnosed Prostate Cancer

Germline genetic testing for inherited prostate cancer in practice: Implications for genetic testing, precision therapy, and cascade testing

Retrospective review of compliance with guideline-directed germline testing in microsatellite instability-high colorectal cancer treated at the Veterans Health Administration.

Implementation of Germline Testing for Prostate Cancer: Philadelphia Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2019

Therapeutic Implications of Germline Testing in Patients With Advanced Cancers

Genetic testing for hereditary prostate cancer: Current status and limitations

Racial Differences in Germline Genetic Testing Completion Among Males With Pancreatic, Breast, or Metastatic Prostate Cancers

Parents' and patients' perspectives, experiences, and preferences for germline genetic or genomic testing of children with cancer: A systematic review

Poor compliance with germline testing recommendations in colorectal cancer patients undergoing molecular residual disease testing

Feasibility and Clinical Utility of Reporting Hereditary Cancer Predisposition Pathogenic Variants Identified in Research Germline Sequencing: A Prospective Interventional Study

Sociodemographic and Clinical Characteristics Associated with Genetic Testing among Cancer Survivors: Evidence from Three Cancer Registries

Clinically relevant genomic alterations identified by targeted exome sequencing in U.S. veterans with prostate cancer.

Germline Testing in Patients With Breast Cancer: ASCO–Society of Surgical Oncology Guideline

Point/Counterpoint: Is It Time for Universal Germline Genetic Testing for all GI Cancers?

CEREBRAL HYPONATREMIA SECONDARY TO EXCESS SECRETION OF ANTIDIURETIC HORMONE IN A PATIENT WITH HERPES SIMPLEX ENCEPHALITIS.

Abstract 3372: Clinical genetic testing results in metastatic prostate cancer patients