Diagnosis of Lynch syndrome (LS) caused by a pathogenic germline MSH6 variant may be complicated by discordant immunohistochemistry (IHC) and/or by a microsatellite stable (MSS) phenotype. This... Show moreDiagnosis of Lynch syndrome (LS) caused by a pathogenic germline MSH6 variant may be complicated by discordant immunohistochemistry (IHC) and/or by a microsatellite stable (MSS) phenotype. This study aimed to identify the various causes of the discordant phenotypes of colorectal cancer (CRC) and endometrial cancer (EC) in MSH6-associated LS. Data were collected from Dutch family cancer clinics. Carriers of a (likely) pathogenic MSH6 variant diagnosed with CRC or EC were categorized based on an microsatellite instability (MSI)/IHC test outcome that might fail to result in a diagnosis of LS (eg, retained staining of all 4 mismatch repair proteins, with or without an MSS phenotype, and other staining patterns). When tumor tissue was available, MSI and/or IHC were repeated. Next-generation sequencing (NGS) was performed in cases with discordant staining patterns. Data were obtained from 360 families with 1763 (obligate) carriers. MSH6 variant carriers with CRC or EC (n = 590) were included, consisting of 418 CRCs and 232 ECs. Discordant staining was reported in 77 cases (36% of MSI/IHC results). Twelve patients gave informed consent for further analysis of tumor material. Upon revision, 2 out of 3 MSI/IHC cases were found to be concordant with the MSH6 variant, and NGS showed that 4 discordant IHC results were sporadic rather than LS-associated tumors. In 1 case, somatic events explained the discordant phenotype. The use of reflex IHC mismatch repair testing, the current standard in most Western countries, may lead to the misdiagnosis of germline MSH6 variant carriers. The pathologist should point out that further diagnostics for inheritable colon cancer, including LS, should be considered in case of a strong positive family history. Germline DNA analysis of the mismatch repair genes, preferably as part of a larger gene panel, should therefore be considered in potential LS patients. Show less
Uncertainty is increasingly discussed during genetic counseling due to innovative techniques, e.g., multigene panel testing. Discussions about uncertainty may impact counselees variably, depending... Show moreUncertainty is increasingly discussed during genetic counseling due to innovative techniques, e.g., multigene panel testing. Discussions about uncertainty may impact counselees variably, depending on counselors' communication styles. Ideally, the discussion of uncertainty enables counselees to cope with uncertainty and make well-informed decisions about testing. We examined the impact of how counselors convey uncertainty and address counselees' uncertainty, and explored the role of individual characteristics. Therefore, a randomized controlled experiment using videos was conducted. Former counselees (N = 224) viewed one video depicting a genetic consultation about multigene panel testing. The extent of counselors' communication of uncertainty (comprehensive vs. the essence) and their response to counselees' uncertainty expressions (providing information vs. providing space for emotions vs. normalizing and counterbalancing uncertainty) were systematically manipulated. Individual characteristics, e.g., uncertainty tolerance, were assessed, as well as outcome variables (primary outcomes: feelings of uncertainty and information recall). No effects were found on primary outcomes. Participants were most satisfied when the essence was communicated, combined with providing information or providing space responses (p = 0.002). Comprehensive information resulted in less perceived steering toward testing (p = 0.005). Participants with lower uncertainty tolerance or higher trait anxiety were less confident about their understanding when receiving comprehensive information (p = 0.025). Participants seeking information experienced less uncertainty (p = 0.003), and trusted their counselor more (p = 0.028), when the counselor used information providing responses. In sum, the impact of discussing uncertainty primarily depends on individual characteristics. Practical guidelines should address how to tailor the discussion of uncertainty. Show less
