Hereditary leiomyomatosis and renal cell carcinoma (HLRCC) syndrome secondary to germline fumarate hydratase (FH) mutation presents with cutaneous and uterine leiomyomas, and a distinctive aggressive renal carcinoma. Identification of HLRCC patients presenting first with uterine leiomyomas may allow early intervention for renal carcinoma. We reviewed the morphology and immunohistochemical (IHC) findings in patients with uterine leiomyomas and confirmed or presumed HLRCC. IHC was also performed on a tissue microarray of unselected uterine leiomyomas and leiomyosarcomas. FH-deficient leiomyomas underwent Sanger and massively parallel sequencing on formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue. All 5 patients with HLRCC had at least 1 FH-deficient leiomyoma: defined as completely negative FH staining with positive internal controls. One percent (12/1152) of unselected uterine leiomyomas but 0 of 88 leiomyosarcomas were FH deficient. FH-deficient leiomyoma patients were younger (42.7 vs. 48.8 y, P=0.024) and commonly demonstrated a distinctive hemangiopericytomatous vasculature. Other features reported to be associated with FH-deficient leiomyomas (hypercellularity, nuclear atypia, inclusion-like nucleoli, stromal edema) were inconstantly present. Somatic FH mutations were identified in 6 of 10 informative unselected FH-deficient leiomyomas. None of these mutations were found in the germline. We conclude that, while the great majority of patients with HLRCC will have FH-deficient leiomyomas, 1% of all uterine leiomyomas are FH deficient usually due to somatic inactivation. Although IHC screening for FH may have a role in confirming patients at high risk for hereditary disease before genetic testing, prospective identification of FH-deficient leiomyomas is of limited clinical benefit in screening unselected patients because of the relatively high incidence of somatic mutations.

BRAFV600E mutation in microsatellite unstable (MSI) CRCs virtually excludes Lynch Syndrome (LS). In microsatellite stable (MSS) CRC it predicts poor prognosis. We propose a universal CRC LS screening algorithm using concurrent reflex immunohistochemistry (IHC) for BRAFV600E and MMR proteins. We compared BRAFV600E IHC to multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and MALDI-TOF spectrometry in 216 consecutive CRCs from 2011. Discordant cases were resolved with rt-PCR. BRAFV600E IHC was performed on 51 CRCs from the Australasian Colorectal Cancer Family Registry (ACCFR) which were fully characterised for BRAF mutation by allele-specific PCR, MMR status (MMR IHC and MSI), MLH1 promoter methylation and germline MLH1 mutation. We then assessed MMR and BRAFV600E IHC on 1403 consecutive CRCs. By MALDI-TOF 15 cases did not yield a BRAF result, while 38/201(19%) were positive. By IHC 45/216(20%) were positive. Of the 7 discordant cases, rt-PCR confirmed the IHC result in 6. In the 51 CRCs from the ACCFR, IHC was concordant with allele-specific PCR in 50 cases. BRAFV600E and MSI IHC on 1403 CRCs demonstrated the following phenotypes: BRAF-ve/MSS (1029 cases,73%), BRAF+ve/MSS (98,7%), BRAF+ve/MSI (183,13%), and BRAF-ve/MSI (93,7%). All 11/1403 cancers associated with proven LS were BRAF-ve/MSI. We conclude that BRAF IHC is highly concordant with two commonly used PCR-based BRAFV600E assays, performed well in identifying MLH1 mutation carriers from the ACCFR and identified all cases of proven LS out of 1403 CRCs. Reflex BRAFV600E and MMR IHC are simple cheap tests which facilitate universal LS screening and identify the poor prognosis BRAFV600E mutant MSS CRC phenotype.

Once a gene mutation that is causal of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and/or frontotemporal dementia (FTD) is identified in a family, relatives may decide to undergo predictive genetic testing to determine whether they are at risk of developing disease. Recent advances in gene discovery have led to a pressing need to better understand the implications of predictive genetic testing. Here we review the uptake of genetic counselling, predictive and reproductive testing, and the factors that impact the decision to undergo testing, for consideration in clinical practice. The literature suggests that the factors impacting the decision to undergo testing are complex due to the nature of these diseases, absence of available preventative medical treatment and variable age of onset in mutation carriers. Gaining further insight into the decision-making process and the impact of testing is critical as we seek to develop best-practice guidelines for predictive testing for familial ALS and FTD.

BackgroundUntil recently, determining penetrance required large observational cohort studies. Data from the Exome Aggregate Consortium (ExAC) allows a Bayesian approach to calculate penetrance, in that population frequencies of pathogenic germline variants should be inversely proportional to their penetrance for disease. We tested this hypothesis using data from two cohorts for succinate dehydrogenase subunits A, B and C (SDHA–C) genetic variants associated with hereditary pheochromocytoma/paraganglioma (PC/PGL).MethodsTwo cohorts were 575 unrelated Australian subjects and 1240 unrelated UK subjects, respectively, with PC/PGL in whom genetic testing had been performed. Penetrance of pathogenic SDHA–C variants was calculated by comparing allelic frequencies in cases versus controls from ExAC (removing those variants contributed by The Cancer Genome Atlas).ResultsPathogenic SDHA–C variants were identified in 106 subjects (18.4%) in cohort 1 and 317 subjects (25.6%) in cohort 2. Of 94 different pathogenic variants from both cohorts (seven in SDHA, 75 in SDHB and 12 in SDHC), 13 are reported in ExAC (two in SDHA, nine in SDHB and two in SDHC) accounting for 21% of subjects with SDHA–C variants. Combining data from both cohorts, estimated lifetime disease penetrance was 22.0% (95% CI 15.2% to 30.9%) for SDHB variants, 8.3% (95% CI 3.5% to 18.5%) for SDHC variants and 1.7% (95% CI 0.8% to 3.8%) for SDHA variants.ConclusionPathogenic variants in SDHB are more penetrant than those in SDHC and SDHA. Our findings have important implications for counselling and surveillance of subjects carrying these pathogenic variants.

No abstract

This paper was supported by funding from Cancer Research-UK to C.E., A.A.P. and R.R. (C481/A8141). The views expressed are those of the authors. No competing interests declared.

No abstract

Objective To understand contemporary genetic counseling and testing practices for late-onset neurodegenerative diseases (LONDs), and identify whether practices address the internationally accepted goals of genetic counseling: interpretation, counseling, education, and support. Methods Four databases were systematically searched for articles published from 2009 to 2020. Peer-reviewed research articles in English that reported research and clinical genetic counseling and testing practices for LONDs were included. A narrative synthesis was conducted to describe different practices and map genetic counseling activities to the goals. Risk of bias was assessed using the Qualsyst tool. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42019121421). Results Sixty-one studies from 68 papers were included. Most papers focused on predictive testing (58/68) and Huntington’s disease (41/68). There was variation between papers in study design, study population, outcomes, interventions, and settings. Although there were commonalities, novel and inconsistent genetic counseling practices were identified. Eighteen papers addressed all four goals of genetic counseling. Conclusion Contemporary genetic counseling and testing practices for LONDs are varied and informed by regional differences and the presence of different health providers. A flexible, multidisciplinary, client- and family-centered care continues to emerge. As genetic testing becomes a routine part of care for patients (and their relatives), health providers must balance their limited time and resources with ensuring clients are safely and effectively counseled, and all four genetic counseling goals are addressed. Areas of further research include diagnostic and reproductive genetic counseling/testing practices, evaluations of novel approaches to care, and the role and use of different health providers in practice. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00415-021-10461-5.