The best screening practice for Lynch syndrome (LS) in endometrial cancer (EC) remains unknown. We sought to determine whether tumor microsatellite instability (MSI) typing along with ...immunohistochemistry (IHC) and MLH1 methylation analysis can help identify women with LS.
ECs from GOG210 patients were assessed for MSI, MLH1 methylation, and mismatch repair (MMR) protein expression. Each tumor was classified as having normal MMR, defective MMR associated with MLH1 methylation, or probable MMR mutation (ie, defective MMR but no methylation). Cancer family history and demographic and clinical features were compared for the three groups. Lynch mutation testing was performed for a subset of women.
Analysis of 1,002 ECs suggested possible MMR mutation in 11.8% of tumors. The number of patients with a family history suggestive of LS was highest among women whose tumors were classified as probable MMR mutation (P = .001). Lynch mutations were identified in 41% of patient cases classified as probable mutation (21 of 51 tested). One of the MSH6 Lynch mutations was identified in a patient whose tumor had intact MSH6 expression. Age at diagnosis was younger for mutation carriers than noncarriers (54.3 v 62.3 years; P < .01), with five carriers diagnosed at age > 60 years.
Combined MSI, methylation, and IHC analysis may prove useful in Lynch screening in EC. Twenty-four percent of mutation carriers presented with ECs at age > 60 years, and one carrier had an MSI-positive tumor with no IHC defect. Restricting Lynch testing to women diagnosed at age < 60 years or to women with IHC defects could result in missing a substantial fraction of genetic disease.
Most patients with
gene variants (Lynch syndrome (LS)) now survive both their first and subsequent cancers, resulting in a growing number of older patients with LS for whom limited information exists ...with respect to cancer risk and survival.
This observational, international, multicentre study aimed to determine prospectively observed incidences of cancers and survival in
carriers up to 75 years of age.
3119 patients were followed for a total of 24 475 years. Cumulative incidences at 75 years (risks) for colorectal cancer were 46%, 43% and 15% in path_
, path_
and path_
carriers; for endometrial cancer 43%, 57% and 46%; for ovarian cancer 10%, 17% and 13%; for upper gastrointestinal (gastric, duodenal, bile duct or pancreatic) cancers 21%, 10% and 7%; for urinary tract cancers 8%, 25% and 11%; for prostate cancer 17%, 32% and 18%; and for brain tumours 1%, 5% and 1%, respectively. Ovarian cancer occurred mainly premenopausally. By contrast, upper gastrointestinal, urinary tract and prostate cancers occurred predominantly at older ages. Overall 5-year survival for prostate cancer was 100%, urinary bladder 93%, ureter 85%, duodenum 67%, stomach 61%, bile duct 29%, brain 22% and pancreas 0%.
carriers had lower risk for cancer.
Carriers of different
variants exhibit distinct patterns of cancer risk and survival as they age. Risk estimates for counselling and planning of surveillance and treatment should be tailored to each patient's age, gender and
variant. We have updated our open-access website www.lscarisk.org to facilitate this.
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.
The Multi-Society Task Force, in collaboration with invited experts, developed guidelines to assist health care providers with the appropriate provision of genetic testing and management of patients ...at risk for and affected with Lynch syndrome as follows: Figure 1 provides a colorectal cancer risk assessment tool to screen individuals in the office or endoscopy setting; Figure 2 illustrates a strategy for universal screening for Lynch syndrome by tumor testing of patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer; Figures 3−6 provide algorithms for genetic evaluation of affected and at-risk family members of pedigrees with Lynch syndrome; Table 10 provides guidelines for screening at-risk and affected persons with Lynch syndrome; and Table 12 lists the guidelines for the management of patients with Lynch syndrome. A detailed explanation of Lynch syndrome and the methodology utilized to derive these guidelines, as well as an explanation of, and supporting literature for, these guidelines are provided.
Aims
Establishing the mismatch repair (MMR) status of colorectal cancers is important to enable the detection of underlying Lynch syndrome and inform prognosis and therapy. Current testing typically ...involves either polymerase chain reaction (PCR)‐based microsatellite instability (MSI) testing or MMR protein immunohistochemistry (IHC). The aim of this study was to compare these two approaches in a large, population‐based cohort of stage 2 and 3 colon cancer cases in Northern Ireland.
Methods and results
The study used the Promega pentaplex assay to determine MSI status and a four‐antibody MMR IHC panel. IHC was applied to tumour tissue microarrays with triplicate tumour sampling, and assessed manually. Of 593 cases with available MSI and MMR IHC results, 136 (22.9%) were MSI‐high (MSI‐H) and 135 (22.8%) showed abnormal MMR IHC. Concordance was extremely high, with 97.1% of MSI‐H cases showing abnormal MMR IHC, and 97.8% of cases with abnormal IHC showing MSI‐H status. Under‐representation of tumour epithelial cells in samples from heavily inflamed tumours resulted in misclassification of several cases with abnormal MMR IHC as microsatellite‐stable. MMR IHC revealed rare cases with unusual patterns of MMR protein expression, unusual combinations of expression loss, or secondary clonal loss of expression, as further illustrated by repeat immunostaining on whole tissue sections.
Conclusions
MSI PCR testing and MMR IHC can be considered to be equally proficient tests for establishing MMR/MSI status, when there is awareness of the potential pitfalls of either method. The choice of methodology may depend on available services and expertise.
Heritable factors account for approximately 35% of colorectal cancer (CRC) risk, and almost 30% of the population in the UK have a family history of CRC. The quantification of an individual's ...lifetime risk of gastrointestinal cancer may incorporate clinical and molecular data, and depends on accurate phenotypic assessment and genetic diagnosis. In turn this may facilitate targeted risk-reducing interventions, including endoscopic surveillance, preventative surgery and chemoprophylaxis, which provide opportunities for cancer prevention. This guideline is an update from the 2010 British Society of Gastroenterology/Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (BSG/ACPGBI) guidelines for colorectal screening and surveillance in moderate and high-risk groups; however, this guideline is concerned specifically with people who have increased lifetime risk of CRC due to hereditary factors, including those with Lynch syndrome, polyposis or a family history of CRC. On this occasion we invited the UK Cancer Genetics Group (UKCGG), a subgroup within the British Society of Genetic Medicine (BSGM), as a partner to BSG and ACPGBI in the multidisciplinary guideline development process. We also invited external review through the Delphi process by members of the public as well as the steering committees of the European Hereditary Tumour Group (EHTG) and the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). A systematic review of 10 189 publications was undertaken to develop 67 evidence and expert opinion-based recommendations for the management of hereditary CRC risk. Ten research recommendations are also prioritised to inform clinical management of people at hereditary CRC risk.
Mismatch repair (MMR)-deficient endometrial carcinomas (ECs) bearing Lynch syndrome (LS)-associated germline mutations or sporadic MLH1 promoter hypermethylation (MLH1hm) are highly immunogenic and ...may represent excellent candidates for therapies targeting the programmed cell death (PD)/programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1) immune checkpoint pathway. This study evaluates PD-L1 expression in MMR-deficient ECs including LS-associated and MLH1hm cases, in comparison with MMR-intact tumors. Immunohistochemistry for PD-L1/CD274 was performed on 38 MMR-deficient and 29 MMR-intact ECs. Staining was scored in the tumor and the peritumoral immune compartment. The majority of MMR-deficient tumors were PD-L1 positive (53%) in at least a subset of tumor cells. LS-associated tumors were more likely to be PD-L1 positive relative to MLH1hm tumors (70% vs. 33%, P=0.05). Only 10% of MMR-intact ECs demonstrated any tumoral PD-L1 expression; this was significantly lower than was observed in MMR-deficient tumors (P=0.0005). When reviewed by histologic grade, PD-L1 expression remained highest in LS-associated ECs followed by MLH1hm and MMR-intact carcinomas, respectively. The MMR immunohistochemical pattern most uniformly associated with PD-L1 expression was MSH6 loss. Immune PD-L1 expression was seen in 100% of MMR-deficient and 66% of MMR-intact cases. This study represents the first to characterize differences in PD-L1 expression between LS-associated and MLH1hm endometrial cancers. It demonstrates that tumoral PD-L1 expression is more common in LS-associated endometrial cancers relative to MLH1hm and MMR-intact tumors, although sporadic cancers often show PD-L1 positive immune staining. These data suggest that MMR deficiency may be a better predictor of response to PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor therapy than tumor grade in EC, and that potential benefit may vary based on the molecular mechanism of MMR defects.
Mismatch repair deficiency (MMRD) is involved in the initiation of both hereditary and sporadic tumors. MMRD has been extensively studied in colorectal cancer and endometrial cancer, but not so in ...other tumors, such as ovarian carcinoma. We have determined the expression of mismatch repair proteins in a large cohort of 502 early-stage epithelial ovarian carcinoma entailing all the 5 main subtypes: high-grade serous carcinoma, endometrioid ovarian carcinoma (EOC), clear cell carcinoma (CCC), mucinous carcinoma, and low-grade serous carcinoma. We studied the association of MMRD with clinicopathologic and immunohistochemical features, including tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in EOC, the histologic type in which MMRD is most frequent. In addition, MLH1 promoter methylation status and massive parallel sequencing were used to evaluate the proportion of sporadic and Lynch syndrome-associated tumors, and the most frequently mutated genes in MMRD EOCs. MMRD occurred only in endometriosis-associated histologic types, and it was much more frequent in EOC (18%) than in CCC (2%). The most frequent immunohistochemical pattern was loss of MLH1/PMS2, and in this group, 80% of the cases were sporadic and secondary to MLH1 promoter hypermethylation. The presence of somatic mutations in mismatch repair genes was the other mechanism of MMRD in sporadic tumors. In this series, the minimum estimated frequency of Lynch syndrome was 35% and it was due to germline mutations in MLH1, MSH2, and MSH6. ARID1A, PTEN, KTM2B, and PIK3CA were the most common mutated genes in this series. Interestingly, possible actionable mutations in ERRB2 were found in 5 tumors, but no TP53 mutations were detected. MMRD was associated with younger age and increased tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes. Universal screening in EOC and mixed EOC/CCC is recommended for the high frequency of MMRD detected; however, for CCC, additional clinical and pathologic criteria should be evaluated to help select cases for analysis.
More than one-fifth of ovarian tumors have hereditary susceptibility and, in about 65–85% of these cases, the genetic abnormality is a germline mutation in BRCA genes. Nevertheless, several other ...suppressor genes and oncogenes have been associated with hereditary ovarian cancers, including the mismatch repair (MMR) genes in Lynch syndrome, the tumor suppressor gene, TP53, in the Li-Fraumeni syndrome, and several other genes involved in the double-strand breaks repair system, such as CHEK2, RAD51, BRIP1, and PALB2. The study of genetic discriminators and deregulated pathways involved in hereditary ovarian syndromes is relevant for the future development of molecular diagnostic strategies and targeted therapeutic approaches. The recent development and implementation of next-generation sequencing technologies have provided the opportunity to simultaneously analyze multiple cancer susceptibility genes, reduce the delay and costs, and optimize the molecular diagnosis of hereditary tumors. Particularly, the identification of mutations in ovarian cancer susceptibility genes in healthy women may result in a more personalized cancer risk management with tailored clinical and radiological surveillance, chemopreventive approaches, and/or prophylactic surgeries. On the other hand, for ovarian cancer patients, the identification of mutations may provide potential targets for biologic agents and guide treatment decision-making.
PDF
