Low MA was significantly associated with poor survival, especially in patients with residual tumor after PDS. MA assessment could be used for risk stratification after PDS.

Microsatellite instability (MSI), a common alteration in endometrial cancers (EC) is known as a biomarker for immune checkpoint therapy response alongside screening for Lynch Syndrome (LS). However, former studies described challenging MSI profiles in EC hindering analysis by using MSI testing methods intensively validated for colorectal cancer (CRC) only. In order to reduce false negatives, this study examined four different PCR-based approaches for MSI testing using 25 EC samples already tested for mismatch repair deficiency (dMMR). In a follow up validation set of 75 EC samples previously tested both for MMR and MSI, the efficiency of a seven-marker system corresponding to the Idylla system was further analyzed. Both Bethesda and Promega marker panels require trained operators to overcome interpretation complexities caused by either hardly visible additional peaks of one and two nucleotides, or small shifts in microsatellite repeat length. Using parallel sequencing adjustment of bioinformatics is needed. Applying the Idylla MSI assay, an evaluation of input material is more crucial for reliable results and is indispensable. Following MMR deficiency testing as a first-line screening procedure, additional testing with a PCR-based method is necessary if inconclusive staining of immunohistochemistry (IHC) must be clarified.

No abstract

No abstract

Background BRCA1/2 mutations are the leading cause of hereditary epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). The German Consortium for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer has defined inclusion criteria, which are retrievable as a checklist and facilitate genetic counselling/testing for affected persons with a mutation probability of ≥ 10%. Our objective was to evaluate the prevalence of the BRCA1/2 mutation(s) based on the checklist score (CLS). Methods A retrospective data analysis was performed on EOC patients with a primary diagnosis treated between 1/2011 – 5/2019 at the Central Essen Clinics, where a BRCA1/2 genetic analysis result and a CLS was available. Out of 545 cases with a BRCA1/2 result (cohort A), 453 cases additionally had an extended gene panel result (cohort B). Results A BRCA1/2 mutation was identified in 23.3% (127/545) in cohort A, pathogenic mutations in non-BRCA1/2 genes were revealed in a further 6.2% in cohort B. In cohort A, 23.3% (127/545) of patients had a BRCA1 (n = 92) or BRCA2 (n = 35) mutation. Singular EOC (CLS 2) was present in 40.9%. The prevalence for a BRCA1/2 mutation in cohort A was 10.8%, 17.2%, 25.0%, 35.1%, 51.4% and 66.7% for patients with CLS 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and ≥ 7 respectively. The mutation prevalence in cohort B was 15.9%, 16.4%, 28.2%, 40.4%, 44.8% and 62.5% for patients with CLS 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and ≥ 7 respectively. Conclusions The BRCA1/2 mutation prevalence in EOC patients positively correlates with a rising checklist score. Already with singular EOC, the prevalence of a BRCA1/2 mutation exceeds the required 10% threshold. Our data support the recommendation of the S3 guidelines Ovarian Cancer of offering genetic testing to all patients with EOC. Optimisation of the checklist with clear identification of the testing indication in this population should therefore be aimed for.