Germline BRCA2 mutations are the first known cause of inherited (familial) pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). This tumor is the third most frequent cancer in carriers of germline BRCA2 mutations, as it occurs in around 10% of BRCA2 families. PDAC is known as one of the most highly lethal cancers, mainly because of its chemoresistance and frequently late diagnosis. Based on recent developments in molecular biology, a subgroup of BRCA2-associated PDAC has been created, allowing screening, early surgical treatment and personalized systemic treatment. BRCA2 germline mutation carriers who have ≥1 first-degree relative, or ≥2 blood relatives with PDAC, should undergo screening and regular follow-up based on magnetic resonance imaging and endoscopic ultrasound. The goal of screening is to detect early invasive PDAC and advanced precancerous lesions suitable for a stepwise surgical complete (R0) resection. Increasing evidence on the molecular role of the BRCA2 protein in the homologous recombination of DNA damages suggest that BRCA2-related PDAC are sensitive to agents causing DNA cross-linking damage, such as platinum salts, and treatments targeting rescue DNA repair pathways, such as poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors that are currently under investigation.

Background Standard high-volume polyethylene glycol [PEG] bowel preparations [PEG-4L] are recommended for patients with inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] undergoing colonoscopy. However, low-volume preparations [≤2 L of active volume] are often used in clinical practice. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of the various bowel preparations for patients with IBD, including low-volume preparations. Methods We conducted a French prospective multicentre observational study over a period of 1 month. Patients aged 18–75 years with IBD with an indication of colonoscopy independent of the study were enrolled. The choice of the preparation was left to the investigators, as per their usual protocol. The patients’ characteristics, disease, and colonoscopy characteristics were recorded, and they were given self-reported questionnaires. Results Twenty-five public and private hospitals enrolled 278 patients. Among them, 46 had a disease flare and 41 had bowel stenoses. Bowel preparations for colonoscopy were as follows: 42% received PEG-2L, 29% received sodium picosulfate [Pico], 15% received PEG-4L, and 14% had other preparations. The preparation did not reach the Boston’s score efficacy outcome in the PEG-4L group in 51.2% of the patients [p = 0.0011]. The preparation intake was complete for 59.5% in the PEG-4L group, compared with 82.9% in the PEG-2L group and 93.8% in the Pico group [p < 0.0001]. Tolerability, as assessed by the patients’ VAS, was significantly better for both Pico and PEG-2L compared with PEG-4L, and better for Pico compared with PEG-2L [p = 0.008; p = 0.0003]. In multivariate analyses, low-volume preparations were independent factors of efficacy and tolerability. Adverse events occurred in 4.3% of the patients. Conclusions Preparations with PEG-2L and Pico were equally safe, with better efficacy and tolerability outcomes compared with PEG-4L preparations. The best efficacy/tolerance/safety profile was achieved with the Pico preparation.

No abstract