The NCCN Guidelines for Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, and Pancreatic focus primarily on assessment of pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants associated with increased risk of breast, ovarian, and pancreatic cancer and recommended approaches to genetic testing/counseling and management strategies in individuals with these pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants. This manuscript focuses on cancer risk and risk management for BRCA-related breast/ovarian cancer syndrome and Li-Fraumeni syndrome. Carriers of a BRCA1/2 pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant have an excessive risk for both breast and ovarian cancer that warrants consideration of more intensive screening and preventive strategies. There is also evidence that risks of prostate cancer and pancreatic cancer are elevated in these carriers. Li-Fraumeni syndrome is a highly penetrant cancer syndrome associated with a high lifetime risk for cancer, including soft tissue sarcomas, osteosarcomas, premenopausal breast cancer, colon cancer, gastric cancer, adrenocortical carcinoma, and brain tumors.

The NCCN Guidelines for Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, and Pancreatic provide recommendations for genetic testing and counseling for hereditary cancer syndromes, and risk management recommendations for patients who are diagnosed with syndromes associated with an increased risk of these cancers. The NCCN panel meets at least annually to review comments, examine relevant new data, and reevaluate and update recommendations. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel’s discussion and most recent recommendations regarding criteria for high-penetrance genes associated with breast and ovarian cancer beyond BRCA1/2, pancreas screening and genes associated with pancreatic cancer, genetic testing for the purpose of systemic therapy decision-making, and testing for people with Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry.

Pathology-based screening of uterine smooth muscle tumors (uSMT) for morphology suggestive of fumarate hydratase deficiency (FH-d morphology) has been proposed as a method to identify women at increased risk for hereditary leiomyomatosis renal cell carcinoma (HLRCC) syndrome. For 5 years our clinical diagnostic practice has evaluated all women with any type of uSMT for FH-d morphology (defined, at low magnification, as staghorn shaped blood vessels and alveolar pattern edema and, at high magnification, as tumor macronucleoli surrounded by a halo and cytoplasmic eosinophilic globules) and, when present, used the pathology report to advise genetic counseling to further evaluate for HLRCC syndrome. We now report the results of this prospective screening strategy, with emphasis on the incidence and clinicopathologic features of FH-d morphology in uSMT, the rate of patient uptake of referral to genetic counseling, and the results of genetic testing for FH germline mutation. Among 2060 women with a uSMT, FH-d morphology was reported in 1.4% (30 women). Ten women elected to undergo FH genetic testing and 6 of 10 (60%) had a FH germline mutation: 5 were pathogenic mutations and 1 was a mutation variant of unknown significance. Therefore, the screening program led to a confirmed genetic diagnosis of HLRCC syndrome in 0.24% of all women with any type of uSMT. The women with a pathogenic mutation were ages 24 to 40 years. Although the majority of leiomyoma with bizarre nuclei exhibited FH-d morphology, the uSMT were conventional leiomyomas with FH-d morphology in 2 of 5 women found to have a pathogenic FH germline mutation. Relying on an abnormal FH immunostain result to trigger genetic counseling referral would have resulted in 2 of 5 (40%) cases with pathogenic FH germline mutation but normal FH immunoexpression going undetected, both of which were missense type mutations. There was no difference in the incidence of pathogenic FH germline mutation between FH-d morphology uSMT with an abnormal versus a normal FH immunostain result. Overall, this study demonstrates that prospective morphology-based screening, integrated with referral for genetic counseling, can result in the diagnosis of HLRCC syndrome in otherwise unselected women with uSMT. We conclude that this strategy should be incorporated in the routine pathologic examination of all uterine smooth muscle tumors.

Hereditary leiomyomatosis and renal cell carcinoma syndrome (HLRCC), caused by a germline mutation in the fumarate hydratase (FH) gene, predisposes patients to uterine and cutaneous smooth muscle tumors and an aggressive type of renal cell carcinoma. Almost all women with HLRCC develop symptomatic uterine leiomyomas resulting in surgery at young ages, presenting an ideal opportunity for early detection of these patients and the implementation of surveillance measures for renal cell carcinoma. FH-deficient uterine leiomyomas can show characteristic morphologic features (FH-d morphology) that have been previously described. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) for FH can also be helpful in detecting FH deficiency in leiomyomas, which manifests as complete loss of staining for FH. However, the distribution and topography of FH-d morphology and FH loss by IHC in the context of multiple leiomyomas in patients with HLRCC has not been evaluated. The aim of this study is to describe in detail the clinical and pathologic characteristics of uterine leiomyomas from women with HLRCC. Six patients with proven FH germline mutations were included. All available slides were reviewed and FH IHC staining was performed on multiple blocks when possible. Clinical data were extracted from online medical records. All 6 patients presented with symptomatic uterine fibroids and underwent myomectomy (age 24 to 36 y), followed by hysterectomy in 2 patients (age 31 and 40 y). Specimens showed conventional leiomyomas, cellular leiomyomas and leiomyomas with bizarre nuclei. FH-d morphology was present in leiomyomas from all patients and was typically observed as a diffuse finding in the majority of slides across different leiomyoma types. FH-d morphology was absent in some leiomyoma sections from one patient and the morphologic features were focal and subtle in leiomyomas from 2 patients. Both hysterectomy specimens were also notable for showing scattered irregular tongues and nodules of smooth muscle proliferation (leiomyomatosis-like) in the background myometrium. Immunohistochemical staining of multiple slides per patient for FH showed either retained staining in all sections (2/6 cases), loss of staining in all sections (1 case) or variable staining across different leiomyomas (3 cases). In conclusion, patients with HLRCC undergo surgery at young ages for highly symptomatic uterine leiomyomas. FH-d morphology is usually a diffuse and well developed finding across different leiomyomas but may be absent or focal and subtle. FH IHC can show variable results and presence of retained FH staining should not be used to exclude the possibility of HLRCC. Referral for genetic counselling and testing should be considered in a young patient with uterine leiomyomas showing FH-d morphology even if immunohistochemical staining for FH is retained.