Genetic testing of cancer susceptibility genes is now widely applied in clinical practice to predict risk of developing cancer. In general, sequence‐based testing of germline DNA is used to determine whether an individual carries a change that is clearly likely to disrupt normal gene function. Genetic testing may detect changes that are clearly pathogenic, clearly neutral, or variants of unclear clinical significance. Such variants present a considerable challenge to the diagnostic laboratory and the receiving clinician in terms of interpretation and clear presentation of the implications of the result to the patient. There does not appear to be a consistent approach to interpreting and reporting the clinical significance of variants either among genes or among laboratories. The potential for confusion among clinicians and patients is considerable and misinterpretation may lead to inappropriate clinical consequences. In this article we review the current state of sequence‐based genetic testing, describe other standardized reporting systems used in oncology, and propose a standardized classification system for application to sequence‐based results for cancer predisposition genes. We suggest a system of five classes of variants based on the degree of likelihood of pathogenicity. Each class is associated with specific recommendations for clinical management of at‐risk relatives that will depend on the syndrome. We propose that panels of experts on each cancer predisposition syndrome facilitate the classification scheme and designate appropriate surveillance and cancer management guidelines. The international adoption of a standardized reporting system should improve the clinical utility of sequence‐based genetic tests to predict cancer risk. Hum Mutat 29(11), 1282–1291, 2008.

Germline CDH1 mutations confer a high lifetime risk of developing diffuse gastric (DGC) and lobular breast cancer (LBC). A multidisciplinary workshop was organised to discuss genetic testing, surgery, surveillance strategies, pathology reporting and the patient's perspective on multiple aspects, including diet post gastrectomy. The updated guidelines include revised CDH1 testing criteria (taking into account first-degree and second-degree relatives): (1) families with two or more patients with gastric cancer at any age, one confirmed DGC; (2) individuals with DGC before the age of 40 and (3) families with diagnoses of both DGC and LBC (one diagnosis before the age of 50). Additionally, CDH1 testing could be considered in patients with bilateral or familial LBC before the age of 50, patients with DGC and cleft lip/palate, and those with precursor lesions for signet ring cell carcinoma. Given the high mortality associated with invasive disease, prophylactic total gastrectomy at a centre of expertise is advised for individuals with pathogenic CDH1 mutations. Breast cancer surveillance with annual breast MRI starting at age 30 for women with a CDH1 mutation is recommended. Standardised endoscopic surveillance in experienced centres is recommended for those opting not to have gastrectomy at the current time, those with CDH1 variants of uncertain significance and those that fulfil hereditary DGC criteria without germline CDH1 mutations. Expert histopathological confirmation of (early) signet ring cell carcinoma is recommended. The impact of gastrectomy and mastectomy should not be underestimated; these can have severe consequences on a psychological, physiological and metabolic level. Nutritional problems should be carefully monitored.

A deficient mismatch repair system (dMMR) is present in 10–20% of patients with sporadic colorectal cancer (CRC) and is associated with a favourable prognosis in early stage disease. Data on patients with advanced disease are scarce. Our aim was to investigate the incidence and outcome of sporadic dMMR in advanced CRC. Data were collected from a phase III study in 820 advanced CRC patients. Expression of mismatch repair proteins was examined by immunohistochemistry. In addition microsatellite instability analysis was performed and the methylation status of the MLH1 promoter was assessed. We then correlated MMR status to clinical outcome. Deficient mismatch repair was found in only 18 (3.5%) out of 515 evaluable patients, of which 13 were caused by hypermethylation of the MLH1 promoter. The median overall survival in proficient MMR (pMMR), dMMR caused by hypermethylation of the MLH1 promoter and total dMMR was 17.9 months (95% confidence interval 16.2–18.8), 7.4 months (95% CI 3.7–16.9) and 10.2 months (95% CI 5.9–19.8), respectively. The disease control rate in pMMR and dMMR patients was 83% (95% CI 79–86%) and 56% (30–80%), respectively. We conclude that dMMR is rare in patients with sporadic advanced CRC. This supports the hypothesis that dMMR tumours have a reduced metastatic potential, as is observed in dMMR patients with early stage disease. The low incidence of dMMR does not allow drawing meaningful conclusions about the outcome of treatment in these patients.

Background: In BRCA2 mutation carriers, increased risks have been reported for several cancer sites besides breast and ovary. As most of the families included in earlier reports were selected on the basis of multiple breast/ovarian cancer cases, it is possible that risk estimates may differ in mutation carriers with a less striking family history. Methods: In the Netherlands, 139 BRCA2 families with 66 different pathogenic mutations were included in a nationwide study. To avoid testing bias, we chose not to estimate risk in typed carriers, but rather in male and female family members with a 50% prior probability of being a carrier (n = 1811). The relative risk (RR) for each cancer site with the exception of breast and ovarian cancer was determined by comparing observed numbers with those expected, based on Dutch cancer incidence rates. Results: We observed an excess risk for four cancer sites: pancreas (RR 5.9; 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.2 to 10.0), prostate (2.5; 1.6 to 3.8), bone (14.4; 2.9 to 42.1) and pharynx (7.3; 2.0 to 18.6). A small increase was observed for cancer of the digestive tract (1.5; 1.1 to 1.9). Histological verification was available for 46% of the tumours. Nearly all increased risks reached statistical significance for men only. Cancer risks tended to be higher for people before the age of 65 years. Moreover, families with mutations outside the previously defined ovarian cancer cluster region tended to have a higher cancer risk. Conclusions: We found that BRCA2 carriers are at increased risk for cancers of the prostate and pancreas, and possibly bone and pharynx. Larger databases with extended follow up are needed to provide insight into mutation specific risks of selected carriers in BRCA2 families.