IMPORTANCE Guidelines for cancer genetic testing based on family history may miss clinically actionable genetic changes with established implications for cancer screening or prevention.OBJECTIVE To determine the proportion and potential clinical implications of inherited variants detected using simultaneous sequencing of the tumor and normal tissue ("tumor-normal sequencing") compared with genetic test results based on current guidelines.

PURPOSE Microsatellite instability (MSI) and/or mismatch repair deficiency (MMR-D) testing has traditionally been performed in patients with colorectal (CRC) and endometrial cancer (EC) to screen for Lynch syndrome (LS)–associated cancer predisposition. The recent success of immunotherapy in high-frequency MSI (MSI-H) and/or MMR-D tumors now supports testing for MSI in all advanced solid tumors. The extent to which LS accounts for MSI-H across heterogeneous tumor types is unknown. Here, we establish the prevalence of LS across solid tumors according to MSI status. METHODS MSI status was determined using targeted next-generation sequencing, with tumors classified as MSI-H, MSI-indeterminate, or microsatellite-stable. Matched germline DNA was analyzed for mutations in LS-associated mismatch repair genes ( MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2, EPCAM). In patients with LS with MSI-H/I tumors, immunohistochemical staining for MMR-D was assessed. RESULTS Among 15,045 unique patients (more than 50 cancer types), LS was identified in 16.3% (53 of 326), 1.9% (13 of 699), and 0.3% (37 of 14,020) of patients with MSI-H, MSI-indeterminate, and microsatellite-stable tumors, respectively ( P < .001). Among patients with LS with MSI-H/I tumors, 50% (33 of 66) had tumors other than CRC/EC, including urothelial, prostate, pancreas, adrenocortical, small bowel, sarcoma, mesothelioma, melanoma, gastric, and germ cell tumors. In these patients with non-CRC/EC tumors, 45% (15 of 33) did not meet LS genetic testing criteria on the basis of personal/family history. Immunohistochemical staining of LS-positive MSI-H/I tumors demonstrated MMR-D in 98.2% (56 of 57) of available cases. CONCLUSION MSI-H/MMR-D is predictive of LS across a much broader tumor spectrum than currently appreciated. Given implications for cancer surveillance and prevention measures in affected families, these data support germline genetic assessment for LS for patients with an MSI-H/MMR-D tumor, regardless of cancer type or family cancer history.

PGAs frequently occur in pancreas exocrine neoplasms and involve multiple genes beyond those previously associated with hereditary pancreatic cancer. These PGAs are therapeutically actionable in about 5% to 10% of patients. These data support routinely offering GT in all pancreatic ductal adenocarcimona patients with a broad panel of known hereditary cancer predisposition genes.

Of patients with non-clear cell RCC, more than 20% had a germline mutation, of which half had the potential to direct systemic therapy. Current referral criteria for genetic testing did not identify a substantial portion of patients with mutations, supporting the role of a more inclusive sequencing approach.

Background The causative factors for the recent increase in early-onset colorectal cancer (EO-CRC) incidence are unknown. We sought to determine if early-onset disease is clinically or genomically distinct from average-onset colorectal cancer (AO-CRC). Methods Clinical, histopathologic, and genomic characteristics of EO-CRC patients (2014-2019), divided into age 35 years and younger and 36-49 years at diagnosis, were compared with AO-CRC (50 years and older). Patients with mismatch repair deficient tumors, CRC-related hereditary syndromes, and inflammatory bowel disease were excluded from all but the germline analysis. All statistical tests were 2-sided. Results In total, 759 patients with EO-CRC (35 years, n = 151; 36-49 years, n = 608) and AO-CRC (n = 687) were included. Left-sided tumors (35 years and younger = 80.8%; 36-49 years = 83.7%; AO = 63.9%; P &lt; .001 for both comparisons), rectal bleeding (35 years and younger = 41.1%; 36-49 years = 41.0%; AO = 25.9%; P = .001 and P &lt; .001, respectively), and abdominal pain (35 years and younger = 37.1%; 36-49 years = 34.0%; AO = 26.8%; P = .01 and P = .005, respectively) were more common in EO-CRC. Among microsatellite stable tumors, we found no differences in histopathologic tumor characteristics. Initially, differences in TP53 and Receptor Tyrosine Kinase signaling pathway (RTK-RAS)alterations were noted by age. However, on multivariate analysis including somatic gene analysis and tumor sidedness, no statistically significant differences at the gene or pathway level were demonstrated. Among advanced microsatellite stable CRCs, chemotherapy response and survival were equivalent by age cohorts. Pathogenic germline variants were identified in 23.3% of patients 35 years and younger vs 14.1% of AO-CRC (P = .01). Conclusions EO-CRCs are more commonly left-sided and present with rectal bleeding and abdominal pain but are otherwise clinically and genomically indistinguishable from AO-CRCs. Aggressive treatment regimens based solely on the age at CRC diagnosis are not warranted.

ediatric cancer is rare, with fewer than 10,000 solid tumors diagnosed in children annually in the United States 1. Previous studies interrogating germline predisposition broadly across pediatric cancer types have found heritable germline predisposition in 8-12% of patients. The yield of germline predisposition detected is dependent on the genes included for analysis and variant interpretation as well as the ascertainment biases found in each cohort. Iterative data are required to expand upon the understanding of susceptibility to pediatric cancer and determine the extent to which germline data may translate into clinical practice 2-7. Certain pediatric cancer diagnoses have well-established associations with germline mutations in specific genes and should automatically prompt clinical suspicion of a cancer predisposition, for example, retinoblastoma (RB1), pleuropulmonary blastoma (DICER1), optic pathway glioma (NF1), atypical teratoid/rhabdoid tumors (SMARCB1), small cell hypercalcemic ovarian tumors (SMARCA4), adrenal cortical tumors (TP53) and hypodiploid acute lymphoblastic leukemia (TP53) 8-10. Germline testing can also be critical for distinguishing between conditions like neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) and constitutional mismatch repair deficiency (CMMRD), which can be phenocopies of each other. For example, a child presenting with numerous café au lait spots and leukemia may have either of these conditions, but treatment and screening recommendations for the proband and family members will differ depending on the germline diagnosis 11. Besides the known associations of causal germline mutations, broad tumor-normal sequencing has revealed novel associations 9,12. While some of these findings likely represent population detection and do not play a role in the pathogenesis of the cancer in question 13 , other novel associations are likely causal. Population detection

Transfer of nucleic acid from cytoplasmic organelles to the nuclear genome is a well-established mechanism of evolutionary change in eukaryotes. Such transfers have occurred throughout evolution, but so far, none has been shown unequivocally to occur de novo to cause a heritable human disease. We have characterized a patient with a de novo nucleic acid transfer from the mito-chondrial to the nuclear genome, a transfer that is responsible for a sporadic case of Pallister-Hall syndrome, a condition usually inherited in an autosomal dominant fashion. This mutation, a 72-bp insertion into exon 14 of the GLI3 gene, creates a premature stop codon and predicts a truncated protein product. Both the mechanism and the cause of the mitochondrial-nuclear transfer are unknown. Although the conception of this patient was temporally and geographically associated with high-level radioactive contamination following the Chernobyl accident, this case cannot, on its own, be used to establish a causal relationship between radiation exposure and this rare type of mutation. Thus, for the time being, it must be considered as an intriguing coincidence. Nevertheless, these data serve to demonstrate that de novo mitochondrial-nuclear transfer of nucleic acid is a novel mechanism of human inherited disease.

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.