Familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) is an autosomal dominantly inherited disorder, which results from a germ line mutation in the APC (adenomatous polyposis coli) gene. FAP is characterized by the formation of hundreds to thousands of colorectal adenomatous polyps. Although the development of colorectal cancer stands out as the most prevalent complication, FAP is a multisystem disorder of growth. This means, it is comparable to other diseases such as the MEN syndromes, Von Hippel-Lindau disease and neurofibromatosis. However, the incidence of many of its clinical features is much lower. Therefore, a specialized multidisciplinary approach to optimize health care-common for other disorders-is not usually taken for FAP patients. Thus, clinicians that care for and counsel members of high-risk families should have familiarity with all the extra-intestinal manifestations of this syndrome. FAPrelated complications, for which medical attention is essential, are not rare and their estimated lifetime risk presumably exceeds 30%. Affected individuals can develop thyroid and pancreatic cancer, hepatoblastomas, CNS tumors (especially medulloblastomas), and various benign tumors such as adrenal adenomas, osteomas, desmoid tumors and dental abnormalities. Due to improved longevity, as a result of better prevention of colorectal cancer, the risk of these clinical problems will further increase.We present a clinical overview of extra-intestinal manifestations, including management and treatment options for the FAP syndrome. Furthermore, we provide recommendations for surveillance of FAP complications based on available literature.

With the widespread adoption of population-based breast cancer screening, ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) has come to represent 20-25% of all breast neoplastic lesions diagnosed. Current treatment aims at preventing invasive breast cancer, but the majority of DCIS lesions will never progress to invasive disease. Still, DCIS is treated by surgical excision, followed by radiotherapy as part of breast conserving treatment, and/or endocrine therapy. This implies over-treatment of the majority of DCIS, as less than 1% of DCIS patients will go on to develop invasive breast cancer annually. If we are able to identify which DCIS is likely to progress or recur as invasive breast cancer and which DCIS would remain indolent, we can treat the first group intensively, while sparing the second group from such unnecessary treatment (surgery, radiotherapy, endocrine therapy) preserving the quality of life of these women. This review summarizes our current knowledge on DCIS and the risks involved regarding progression into invasive breast cancer. It also shows current knowledge gaps, areas where profound research is highly necessary for women with DCIS to prevent their over-treatment in case of a harmless DCIS, but provide optimal treatment for potentially hazardous DCIS.

PURPOSE BRAF/MEK inhibition is a standard of care for patients with BRAF V600E/K–mutated metastatic melanoma. For patients with less frequent BRAF mutations, however, efficacy data are limited. METHODS In the current study, 103 patients with metastatic melanoma with rare, activating non-V600E/K BRAF mutations that were treated with either a BRAF inhibitor (BRAFi), MEK inhibitor (MEKi), or the combination were included. BRAF mutation, patient and disease characteristics, response, and survival data were analyzed. RESULTS Fifty-eight patient tumors (56%) harbored a non-E/K V600 mutation, 38 (37%) a non-V600 mutation, and seven had both V600E and a rare BRAF mutation (7%). The most frequent mutations were V600R (43%; 44 of 103), L597P/Q/R/S (15%; 15 of 103), and K601E (11%; 11 of 103). Most patients had stage IV disease and 42% had elevated lactate dehydrogenase at BRAFi/MEKi initiation. Most patients received combined BRAFi/MEKi (58%) or BRAFi monotherapy (37%). Of the 58 patients with V600 mutations, overall response rate to BRAFi monotherapy and combination BRAFi/MEKi was 27% (six of 22) and 56% (20 of 36), respectively, whereas median progression-free survival (PFS) was 3.7 months and 8.0 months, respectively ( P = .002). Of the 38 patients with non-V600 mutations, overall response rate was 0% (zero of 15) to BRAFi, 40% (two of five) to MEKi, and 28% (five of 18) to combination treatment, with a median PFS of 1.8 months versus 3.7 months versus 3.3 months, respectively. Multivariable analyses revealed superior survival (PFS and overall survival) with combination over monotherapy in rare V600 and non-V600 mutated melanoma. CONCLUSION Patients with rare BRAF mutations can respond to targeted therapy, however, efficacy seems to be lower compared with V600E mutated melanoma. Combination BRAFi/MEKi seems to be the best regimen for both V600 and non-V600 mutations. Yet interpretation should be done with care because of the heterogeneity of patients with small sample sizes for some of the reported mutations.

Diagnosis of limb girdle muscular dystrophy type 2A can be complex due to phenotypic variability, lack of precision of protein analysis in muscle biopsies, and absence of mutational hot spots in the CAPN3 gene. The aim of this study was to review clinical and biopsy data from a group of patients with known CAPN3 genetic status to validate and refine our current diagnostic strategy, which combines clinical information and protein analysis to direct gene testing. We analysed 85 patients in whom CAPN3 gene sequencing had been performed. Forty-two patients had two mutations, 15 a single mutation and in 28 no mutation was found. We identified clinical features that clearly discriminated the LGMD2A patients. These were: presence of scapular winging, contractures and normal respiratory function. In addition, a typical pattern of muscle weakness on manual muscle testing could be confirmed. Interpretation of protein expression obtained by Western blot was complex and involved the analysis of a number of bands detected by two antibodies for calpain 3. Loss of all calpain 3 bands was 100% specific for LGMD2A, but this pattern was found in only 23%. Absence or reduction of the approximately 60 kDa bands was also highly specific for LGMD2A, while increased abundance was highly predictive of no mutations being found even where other bands were reduced, suggesting that this is the most sensitive marker of artefactual protein degradation. Twenty-three percent of the patients with two mutations had normal full-sized calpain 3 protein, consistent with the finding of mutations localized in parts of the gene likely or proven to be involved in autolytic activity. Clinical and biochemical findings in patients with only one mutation were similar to patients with two mutations, indicating that other gene analysis techniques should be used before excluding the diagnosis. Our analysis confirms that our strategy is still valid to prioritize genetic testing in this complex group of patients, provided patients with normal protein but a suggestive clinical phenotype are not excluded from genetic testing.