Lynch syndrome is the most common cause of inherited colorectal and endometrial cancers. Individuals with Lynch syndrome have a 10–80 % lifetime risk for colorectal cancer and a 15–60 % lifetime risk ...for endometrial cancer. Both cancers are preventable through chemoprevention, intensive cancer surveillance, and risk-reducing surgery options. Efforts to identify as many individuals with Lynch syndrome as possible will prevent cancers and save lives. This includes the traditional cancer genetic counseling model whereby individuals with and without cancer are evaluated for a possible Lynch syndrome diagnosis based on their personal and family history of colon polyps and cancers. It also includes universal tumor screening for Lynch syndrome whereby all individuals with colorectal or endometrial cancer are screened for tumor features of Lynch syndrome at the time of diagnosis. Those with tumors suspicious for Lynch syndrome are referred for cancer genetic counseling regardless of their family history of cancer. This two approaches must be maximized to attain high patient reach. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, cascade testing among the at-risk relatives of those diagnosed with Lynch syndrome is critically important to maximize the diagnosis of individuals with Lynch syndrome. In fact, the cost-effectiveness of universal tumor screening for Lynch syndrome relies entirely on counseling and testing as many at-risk individuals as possible since young unaffected individuals stand to benefit the most from an early diagnosis of Lynch syndrome. This approach must be optimized to achieve high family reach. It will take a concerted effort from patients, clinicians and public health officials to improve current approaches to the diagnosis of Lynch syndrome and the prevention and treatment of Lynch syndrome-associated cancer but these lessons can be applied to other conditions as the ultimate example of personalized medicine.
The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has long affirmed that the recognition and management of individuals with an inherited susceptibility to cancer are core elements of oncology care. ...ASCO released its first statement on genetic testing in 1996 and updated that statement in 2003 and 2010 in response to developments in the field. In 2014, the Cancer Prevention and Ethics Committees of ASCO commissioned another update to reflect the impact of advances in this area on oncology practice. In particular, there was an interest in addressing the opportunities and challenges arising from the application of massively parallel sequencing-also known as next-generation sequencing-to cancer susceptibility testing. This technology introduces a new level of complexity into the practice of cancer risk assessment and management, requiring renewed effort on the part of ASCO to ensure that those providing care to patients with cancer receive the necessary education to use this new technology in the most effective, beneficial manner. The purpose of this statement is to explore the challenges of new and emerging technologies in cancer genetics and provide recommendations to ensure their optimal deployment in oncology practice. Specifically, the statement makes recommendations in the following areas: germline implications of somatic mutation profiling, multigene panel testing for cancer susceptibility, quality assurance in genetic testing, education of oncology professionals, and access to cancer genetic services.
This guideline presents recommendations for the management of patients with hereditary gastrointestinal cancer syndromes. The initial assessment is the collection of a family history of cancers and ...premalignant gastrointestinal conditions and should provide enough information to develop a preliminary determination of the risk of a familial predisposition to cancer. Age at diagnosis and lineage (maternal and/or paternal) should be documented for all diagnoses, especially in first- and second-degree relatives. When indicated, genetic testing for a germline mutation should be done on the most informative candidate(s) identified through the family history evaluation and/or tumor analysis to confirm a diagnosis and allow for predictive testing of at-risk relatives. Genetic testing should be conducted in the context of pre- and post-test genetic counseling to ensure the patient's informed decision making. Patients who meet clinical criteria for a syndrome as well as those with identified pathogenic germline mutations should receive appropriate surveillance measures in order to minimize their overall risk of developing syndrome-specific cancers. This guideline specifically discusses genetic testing and management of Lynch syndrome, familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP), attenuated familial adenomatous polyposis (AFAP), MUTYH-associated polyposis (MAP), Peutz-Jeghers syndrome, juvenile polyposis syndrome, Cowden syndrome, serrated (hyperplastic) polyposis syndrome, hereditary pancreatic cancer, and hereditary gastric cancer.
Microsatellite instability (MSI) is a useful phenotype in cancer diagnosis and prognosis. Nevertheless, methods to detect MSI status from next generation DNA sequencing (NGS) data are underdeveloped.
...We developed an approach to detect the MSI phenotype using NGS (mSINGS). The method was used to evaluate mononucleotide microsatellite loci that were incidentally sequenced after targeted gene enrichment and could be applied to gene or exome capture panels designed for other purposes. For each microsatellite locus, the number of differently sized repeats in experimental samples were quantified and compared to a population of normal controls. Loci were considered unstable if the experimental number of repeats was statistically greater than in the control population. MSI status was determined by the fraction of unstable microsatellite loci.
We examined data from 324 samples generated using targeted gene capture assays of 3 different sizes, ranging from a 0.85-Mb to a 44-Mb exome design and incorporating from 15 to 2957 microsatellite markers. When we compared mSING results to MSI-PCR as a gold standard for 108 cases, we found the approach to be both diagnostically sensitive (range of 96.4% to 100% across 3 panels) and specific (range of 97.2% to 100%) for determining MSI status. The fraction of unstable microsatellite markers calculated from sequencing data correlated with the number of unstable loci detected by conventional MSI-PCR testing.
NGS data can enable highly accurate detection of MSI, even from limited capture designs. This novel approach offers several advantages over existing PCR-based methods.
Microsatellite instability (MSI) is a clonal change in the number of repeated DNA nucleotide units in microsatellites. It arises in tumors with deficient mismatch repair due to the inactivation of ...one of the four mismatch repair genes: MSH2, MLH1, MSH6, and PMS2. In order to determine the MSI status of a tumor, microdissection and polymerase chain reaction-based detection strategies are required. For practical purposes, MSI is equivalent to the loss of staining by immunohistochemistry (IHC) of one of the mismatch repair genes since both signify an abnormality in mismatch repair. Of all colorectal cancers (CRCs), 15% to 20% display MSI or abnormal IHC (often referred to as microsatellite instability MIN pathway). The remaining 80% to 85% of CRCs are microsatellite stable but most are characterized by chromosomal instability (CIN pathway). Almost all Lynch syndrome tumors have MSI or abnormal IHC and they account for up to one third of all MIN CRCs (3% to 5% of all CRCs). The remaining MIN tumors are sporadic as a result of somatic inactivation of the MLH1 gene caused by methylation of its promoter. Thus, the presence of a MSI/IHC abnormality prompts further investigations to diagnose Lynch syndrome, whereas its absence excludes Lynch syndrome. We recommend screening all CRC tumors for IHC or MSI. MIN tumors have a more favorable outcome than CIN tumors, and fluorouracil-based adjuvant chemotherapy does not improve the outcome of stage II or stage III MIN tumors. More data are needed to determine how best to treat patients with stage II and stage III MIN CRCs.
The practice guidelines of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) and the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) are developed by members of the ACMG and NSGC to assist ...medical geneticists, genetic counselors, and other health-care providers in making decisions about appropriate management of genetic concerns, including access to and/or delivery of services. Each practice guideline focuses on a clinical or practice-based issue and is the result of a review and analysis of current professional literature believed to be reliable. As such, information and recommendations within the ACMG and NSGC joint practice guidelines reflect the current scientific and clinical knowledge at the time of publication, are current only as of their publication date, and are subject to change without notice as advances emerge. In addition, variations in practice, which take into account the needs of the individual patient and the resources and limitations unique to the institution or type of practice, may warrant approaches, treatments, and/or procedures that differ from the recommendations outlined in this guideline. Therefore, these recommendations should not be construed as dictating an exclusive course of management, nor does the use of such recommendations guarantee a particular outcome. Genetic counseling practice guidelines are never intended to displace a health-care provider's best medical judgment based on the clinical circumstances of a particular patient or patient population. Practice guidelines are published by the ACMG or the NSGC for educational and informational purposes only, and neither the ACMG nor the NSGC "approve" or "endorse" any specific methods, practices, or sources of information.Cancer genetic consultation is an important aspect of the care of individuals at increased risk of a hereditary cancer syndrome. Yet several patient, clinician, and system-level barriers hinder identification of individuals appropriate for cancer genetics referral. Thus, the purpose of this practice guideline is to present a single set of comprehensive personal and family history criteria to facilitate identification and maximize appropriate referral of at-risk individuals for cancer genetic consultation. To develop this guideline, a literature search for hereditary cancer susceptibility syndromes was conducted using PubMed. In addition, GeneReviews and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines were reviewed when applicable. When conflicting guidelines were identified, the evidence was ranked as follows: position papers from national and professional organizations ranked highest, followed by consortium guidelines, and then peer-reviewed publications from single institutions. The criteria for cancer genetic consultation referral are provided in two formats: (i) tables that list the tumor type along with the criteria that, if met, would warrant a referral for a cancer genetic consultation and (ii) an alphabetical list of the syndromes, including a brief summary of each and the rationale for the referral criteria that were selected. Consider referral for a cancer genetic consultation if your patient or any of their first-degree relatives meet any of these referral criteria.
Purpose Most existing literature describes Lynch syndrome (LS) as a hereditary syndrome leading to high risks of colorectal cancer (CRC) and endometrial cancer mainly as a result of mutations in MLH1 ...and MSH2. Most of these studies were performed on cohorts with disease suggestive of hereditary CRC and population-based CRC and endometrial cancer cohorts, possibly biasing results. We aimed to describe a large cohort of mismatch repair (MMR) mutation carriers ascertained through multigene panel testing, evaluate their phenotype, and compare the results with those of previous studies. Methods We retrospectively reviewed clinical histories of patients who had multigene panel testing, including the MMR and EPCAM genes, between March 2012 and June 2015 (N = 34,981) and performed a series of statistical comparisons. Results Overall, MSH6 mutations were most frequent, followed by PMS2, MSH2, MLH1, and EPCAM mutations, respectively. Of 528 patients who had MMR mutations, 63 (11.9%) had breast cancer only and 144 (27.3%) had CRC only. When comparing those with breast cancer only to those with CRC only, MSH6 and PMS2 mutations were more frequent than MLH1 and MSH2 mutations ( P = 2.3 × 10
). Of the 528 patients, 22.2% met BRCA1 and BRCA2 ( BRCA1/2) testing criteria and not LS criteria, and 5.1% met neither BRCA1/2 nor LS testing criteria. MSH6 and PMS2 mutations were more frequent than MLH1 and MSH2 mutations among patients who met BRCA1/2 testing criteria but did not meet LS testing criteria ( P = 4.3 × 10
). Conclusion These results provide a new perspective on LS and suggest that individuals with MSH6 and PMS2 mutations may present with a hereditary breast and ovarian cancer phenotype. These data also highlight the limitations of current testing criteria in identifying these patients, as well as the need for further investigation of cancer risks in patients with MMR mutations.
Immunohistochemistry (IHC) for MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2 protein expression and microsatellite instability (MSI) are well-established tools to screen for Lynch syndrome (LS). Although many cancer ...centers have adopted these tools as reflex LS screening after a colorectal cancer diagnosis, the standard of care has not been established, and no formal studies have described this practice in the United States. The purpose of this study was to describe prevalent practices regarding IHC/MSI reflex testing for LS in the United States and the subsequent follow-up of abnormal results.
A 12-item survey was developed after interdisciplinary expert input. A letter of invitation, survey, and online-survey option were sent to a contact at each cancer program. A modified Dillman strategy was used to maximize the response rate. The sample included 39 National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers (NCI-CCCs), 50 randomly selected American College of Surgeons-accredited Community Hospital Comprehensive Cancer Programs (COMPs), and 50 Community Hospital Cancer Programs (CHCPs).
The overall response rate was 50%. Seventy-one percent of NCI-CCCs, 36% of COMPs, and 15% of CHCPs were conducting reflex IHC/MSI for LS; 48% of the programs used IHC, 14% of the programs used MSI, and 38% of the programs used both IHC and MSI. One program used a presurgical information packet, four programs offered an opt-out option, and none of the programs required written consent.
Although most NCI-CCCs use reflex IHC/MSI to screen for LS, this practice is not well-adopted by community hospitals. These findings may indicate an emerging standard of care and diffusion from NCI-CCC to community cancer programs. Our findings also described an important trend away from requiring written patient consent for screening.
Identification of individuals with inherited predispositions to cancer, including Lynch syndrome, can help prevent cancer and cancer-related death by allowing for the uptake of specific cancer ...prevention and screening as well as the use of therapies directed toward the underlying neoplastic process for individuals with advanced cancer. In the 25 years since the discovery of microsatellite instability (MSI) and the first recognition of germline mismatch repair (MMR) gene variants as the etiologic basis of Lynch syndrome, there has been tremendous progress in the understanding of the spectrum of cancer risk associated with Lynch syndrome as well as in cancer prevention and risk-reduction strategies. The past few years, in particular, have brought transformative changes in the treatment of Lynch syndrome-associated cancers with immune checkpoint inhibitors. In parallel, advances in next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies now allow rapid and scalable somatic and germline sequencing that promises to help identify Lynch syndrome in individuals who otherwise lack classic phenotypes. Last, real progress is being made to understand more sophisticated methods of precision cancer prevention, including chemotherapeutic prevention agents (e.g., aspirin) and strategies that leverage the immune system to facilitate primary cancer prevention in otherwise-healthy Lynch syndrome carriers.
PDF
