Forster, Victoria J.

PURPOSE Diagnosis of Mismatch Repair Deficiency (MMRD) is crucial for tumor management and early detection in patients with the cancer predisposition syndrome constitutional mismatch repair deficiency (CMMRD). Current diagnostic tools are cumbersome and inconsistent both in childhood cancers and in determining germline MMRD. PATIENTS AND METHODS We developed and analyzed a functional Low-pass Genomic Instability Characterization (LOGIC) assay to detect MMRD. The diagnostic performance of LOGIC was compared with that of current established assays including tumor mutational burden, immunohistochemistry, and the microsatellite instability panel. LOGIC was then applied to various normal tissues of patients with CMMRD with comprehensive clinical data including age of cancer presentation. RESULTS Overall, LOGIC was 100% sensitive and specific in detecting MMRD in childhood cancers (N = 376). It was more sensitive than the microsatellite instability panel (14%, P = 4.3 × 10 −12 ), immunohistochemistry (86%, P = 4.6 × 10 −3 ), or tumor mutational burden (80%, P = 9.1 × 10 −4 ). LOGIC was able to distinguish CMMRD from other cancer predisposition syndromes using blood and saliva DNA ( P < .0001, n = 277). In normal cells, MMRDness scores differed between tissues (GI > blood > brain), increased over time in the same individual, and revealed genotype-phenotype associations within the mismatch repair genes. Importantly, increased MMRDness score was associated with younger age of first cancer presentation in individuals with CMMRD ( P = 2.2 × 10 −5 ). CONCLUSION LOGIC was a robust tool for the diagnosis of MMRD in multiple cancer types and in normal tissues. LOGIC may inform therapeutic cancer decisions, provide rapid diagnosis of germline MMRD, and support tailored surveillance for individuals with CMMRD.

Introduction Considerable observational evidence suggests that cancer online support groups reduce feelings of isolation, depression and anxiety, enhance coping and self-management, and lead to better informed patients. Other studies indicate that cancer online support groups can increase distress. Yet no studies theorise the complex, context-dependent mechanisms by which cancer online support groups generate their—sometimes contrasting—outcomes. Methods and analysis Guided by an integrated knowledge translation approach and the strategy for patient-oriented research, we will conduct a realist review of cancer online support groups in partnership with stakeholders. We will follow Pawson’s five steps and existing quality standards to develop a program theory that explains how cancer online support groups work, for whom and in what circumstances. The specific research questions will be: what positive and negative outcomes have been reported on cancer online support groups? What are the mechanisms that are associated with these outcomes, in which contexts and for whom? Through a rigorous review of relevant scientific and grey literature, as well as ongoing dialogue with stakeholders, a program theory will be developed to explain who benefits from cancer online support groups and who does not, what benefits they derive (or do not), and the factors that affect these outcomes. Ethics and dissemination The use of secondary data for this review precludes the need for ethical approval. Dissemination will be informed by the knowledge-to-action framework and will consist of tailored knowledge products that are conceived of collaboratively with stakeholders. These will include peer-reviewed publications on how cancer online support groups can be optimised and best practice recommendations to maximise the benefits experienced by people with cancer. These traditional scientific outputs, along with their respective evidence summaries, will be amplified through strategic social media events hosted and promoted by knowledge users. PROSPERO registration number CRD42021250046.