Citations

Abstract The public health impact of genomic screening can be enhanced by cascade testing. However, cascade testing depends on communication of results to family members. While the barriers and facilitators of family communication have been researched following clinical genetic testing, the factors impacting the dissemination of genomic screening results are unknown. Using the pragmatic Electronic Medical Records and Genomics Network‐3 (eMERGE‐3) study, we explored the reported sharing practices of participants who underwent genomic screening across the United States. Six eMERGE‐3 sites returned genomic screening results for mostly dominant medically actionable disorders and surveyed adult participants regarding communication of results with first‐degree relatives. Across the sites, 279 participants completed a 1‐month and/or 6‐month post‐results survey. By 6 months, only 34% of the 156 respondents shared their results with all first‐degree relatives and 4% did not share with any. Over a third (39%) first‐degree relatives were not notified of the results. Half (53%) of participants who received their results from a genetics provider shared them with all first‐degree relatives compared with 11% of participants who received their results from a non‐genetics provider. The most frequent reasons for sharing were a feeling of obligation (72%) and that the information could help family members make medical decisions (72%). The most common reasons indicated for not sharing were that the family members were too young (38%), or they were not in contact (25%) or not close to them (25%). These data indicate that the professional returning the results may impact sharing patterns, suggesting that there is a need to continue to educate healthcare providers regarding approaches to facilitate sharing of genetic results within families. Finally, these data suggest that interventions to increase sharing may be universally effective regardless of the origin of the genetic result.

Background: Optimal patient selection for radiotherapy in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is unestablished. Molecular profiling may select patients at high risk for locoregional recurrence (LRR) who would benefit from radiation. Methods: We included resectable pancreatic cancer (R-PDAC) patients, divided into training and validation cohorts, treated among three institutions with surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy, and borderline resectable or locally advanced pancreatic cancer (BR/LA-PDAC) patients treated with chemotherapy with or without radiation at the primary study institution. We isolated RNA from R-PDAC surgical specimens. Using NanoString, we identified miRNAs differentially expressed between normal and malignant pancreatic tissue. ElasticNet regression identified two miRNAs most predictive of LRR in the training cohort, miR-181b/d and miR-575, which were used to generate a risk score (RS). We evaluated the association of the median-dichotomized RS with recurrence and overall survival (OS). Results: We identified 183 R-PDAC and 77 BR/LA-PDAC patients with median follow up of 37 months treated between 2001 and 2014. On multivariable analysis of the R-PDAC training cohort (n = 90), RS was associated with worse LRR (HR = 1.34; 95%CI 1.27–11.38; p = 0.017) and OS (HR = 2.89; 95%CI 1.10–4.76; p = 0.027). In the R-PDAC validation cohort, RS was associated with worse LRR (HR = 2.39; 95%CI 1.03–5.54; p = 0.042), but not OS (p = 0.087). For BR/LA-PDAC, RS was associated with worse LRR (HR = 2.71; 95%CI 1.14–6.48; p = 0.025), DR (HR = 1.93; 95%CI 1.10–3.38; p = 0.022), and OS (HR = 1.97; 95%CI 1.17–3.34; p = 0.011). Additionally, after stratifying by RS and receipt of radiation in BR/LA-PDAC patients, high RS patients who did not receive radiation had worse LRR (p = 0.018), DR (p = 0.006), and OS (p < 0.001) compared to patients with either low RS or patients who received radiation, irrespective of RS. Conclusions: RS predicted worse LRR and OS in R-PDAC and worse LRR, DR, and OS in BR/LA-PDAC. This may select patients who would benefit from radiation and should be validated prospectively.

Introduction We prospectively investigated the associations between diabetes-related family conflict, parent engagement in child type 1 diabetes (T1D) care, and child glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) in 127 families of school-age children who we recruited within the first year of their T1D diagnosis. Research design and methods Parents completed the Diabetes Family Conflict Scale-Revised (DFCS-R) to assess for diabetes-related family conflict and the Diabetes Self-Management Questionnaire-Brief (DSMQ-Brief) to assess parent engagement in child T1D care at the initial study visit (T1) and at 12 (T2) and 27 (T3) months later. We also collected child HbA1c at these time points. Our analyses included Pearson correlations and repeated measures linear mixed models controlling for child age, sex, and T1D duration at T1. Results Parents’ DFCS-R scores negatively correlated with DSMQ-Brief scores (r=−0.13, p<0.05) and positively correlated with children’s HbA1c (r=0.26, p<0.001). In our linear mixed models, parents’ DSMQ-Brief scores were unchanged at T2 (β=−0.71, 95% CI −1.59 to 0.16) and higher at T3 (β=8.01, 95% CI 6.89 to 9.13) compared with T1, and there was an association between increasing DFCS-R and decreasing DSMQ-Brief scores (β=−0.14, 95% CI −0.21 to −0.06). Child HbA1c values were significantly higher at T2 (β=0.66, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.94) and T3 (β=0.95, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.27) compared with T1, and there was an association between increasing DFCS-R scores and increasing child HbA1c (β=0.04, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.06). Conclusions Increasing diabetes-specific family conflict early in T1D may associate with decreasing parent engagement in child T1D care and increasing child HbA1c, suggesting a need to assess and intervene on diabetes-specific family conflict. Trial registration number NCT03698708.

Abstract KRAS-activating mutations are oncogenic drivers and are correlated with radioresistance of multiple cancers, including colorectal cancer, but the underlying precise molecular mechanisms remain elusive. Herein we model the radiosensitivity of isogenic HCT116 and SW48 colorectal cancer cell lines bearing wild-type or various mutant KRAS isoforms. We demonstrate that KRAS mutations indeed lead to radioresistance accompanied by reduced radiotherapy-induced mitotic catastrophe and an accelerated release from G2/M arrest. Moreover, KRAS mutations result in increased DNA damage response and upregulation of 53BP1 with associated increased non-homologous end-joining (NHEJ) repair. Remarkably, KRAS mutations lead to activation of NRF2 antioxidant signaling to increase 53BP1 gene transcription. Furthermore, genetic silencing or pharmacological inhibition of KRAS, NRF2 or 53BP1 attenuates KRAS mutation-induced radioresistance, especially in G1 phase cells. These findings reveal an important role for a KRAS-induced NRF2-53BP1 axis in the DNA repair and survival of KRAS-mutant tumor cells after radiotherapy, and indicate that targeting NRF2, 53BP1 or NHEJ may represent novel strategies to selectively abrogate KRAS mutation-mediated radioresistance.

The NCCN Guidelines for Older Adult Oncology address specific issues related to the management of cancer in older adults, including screening and comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA), assessing the risks and benefits of treatment, preventing or decreasing complications from therapy, and managing patients deemed to be at high risk for treatment-related toxicity. CGA is a multidisciplinary, in-depth evaluation that assesses the objective health of the older adult while evaluating multiple domains, which may affect cancer prognosis and treatment choices. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on recent updates to the NCCN Guidelines providing specific practical framework for the use of CGA when evaluating older adults with cancer.