Eflornithine plus Sulindac for Prevention of Progression in Familial Adenomatous Polyposis

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of combination therapy with eflornithine and sulindac, as compared with either drug alone, in delaying disease progression in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis are unknown. METHODS: We evaluated the efficacy and safety of the combination of eflornithine and sulindac, as compared with either drug alone, in adults with familial adenomatous polyposis. The patients were stratified on the basis of anatomical site with the highest polyp burden and surgical status; the strata were precolectomy (shortest projected time to disease progression), rectal or ileal pouch polyposis after colectomy (longest projected time), and duodenal polyposis (intermediate projected time). The patients were then randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive 750 mg of eflornithine, 150 mg of sulindac, or both once daily for up to 48 months. The primary end point, assessed in a time-to-event analysis, was disease progression, defined as a composite of major surgery, endoscopic excision of advanced adenomas, diagnosis of high-grade dysplasia in the rectum or pouch, or progression of duodenal disease. RESULTS: A total of 171 patients underwent randomization. Disease progression occurred in 18 of 56 patients (32%) in the eflornithine-sulindac group, 22 of 58 (38%) in the sulindac group, and 23 of 57 (40%) in the eflornithine group, with a hazard ratio of 0.71 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39 to 1.32) for eflornithine-sulindac as compared with sulindac (P = 0.29) and 0.66 (95% CI, 0.36 to 1.24) for eflornithine-sulindac as compared with eflornithine. Among 37 precolectomy patients, the corresponding values in the treatment groups were 2 of 12 patients (17%), 6 of 13 (46%), and 5 of 12 (42%) (hazard ratios, 0.30 [95% CI, 0.07 to 1.32] and 0.20 [95% CI, 0.03 to 1.32]); among 34 patients with rectal or ileal pouch polyposis, the values were 4 of 11 patients (36%), 2 of 11 (18%), and 5 of 12 (42%) (hazard ratios, 2.03 [95% CI, 0.43 to 9.62] and 0.84 [95% CI, 0.24 to 2.90]); and among 100 patients with duodenal polyposis, the values were 12 of 33 patients (36%), 14 of 34 (41%), and 13 of 33 (39%) (hazard ratios, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.34 to 1.52] and 0.76 [95% CI, 0.35 to 1.64]). Adverse and serious adverse events were similar across the treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial involving patients with familial adenomatous polyposis, the incidence of disease progression was not significantly lower with the combination of eflornithine and sulindac than with either drug alone. (Funded by Cancer Prevention Pharmaceuticals; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01483144; EudraCT number, 2012-000427-41.).status: publishe

Variation in the risk of colorectal cancer in families with Lynch syndrome : a retrospective cohort study

Background: Existing clinical practice guidelines for carriers of pathogenic variants of DNA mismatch repair genes (Lynch syndrome) are based on the mean age-specific cumulative risk (penetrance) of colorectal cancer for all carriers of pathogenic variants in the same gene. We aimed to estimate the variation in the penetrance of colorectal cancer between carriers of pathogenic variants in the same gene by sex and continent of residence. Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, we sourced data from the International Mismatch Repair Consortium, which comprises 273 members from 122 research centres or clinics in 32 countries from six continents who are involved in Lynch syndrome research. Families with at least three members and at least one confirmed carrier of a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant in a DNA mismatch repair gene (MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, or PMS2) were included. The families of probands with known de-novo pathogenic variants were excluded. Data were collected on the method of ascertainment of the family, sex, carrier status, cancer diagnoses, and ages at the time of pedigree collection and at last contact or death. We used a segregation analysis conditioned on ascertainment to estimate the mean penetrance of colorectal cancer and modelled unmeasured polygenic factors to estimate the variation in penetrance. The existence of unknown familial risk factors modifying colorectal cancer risk for Lynch syndrome carriers was tested by use of a Wald p value for the null hypothesis that the polygenic SD is zero. Findings: 5585 families with Lynch syndrome from 22 countries were eligible for the analysis. Of these, there were insufficient numbers to estimate penetrance for Asia and South America, and for those with EPCAM variants. Therefore, we used data (collected between July 11, 2014, and Dec 31, 2018) from 5255 families (1829 MLH1, 2179 MSH2, 798 MSH6, and 449 PMS2), comprising 79 809 relatives, recruited in 15 countries in North America, Europe, and Australasia. There was strong evidence of the existence of unknown familial risk factors modifying colorectal cancer risk for Lynch syndrome carriers (pT variant. The variation was especially prominent for MLH1 and MSH2 variant carriers, depending on gene, sex and continent, with 7–56% of carriers having a colorectal cancer penetrance of less than 20%, 9–44% having a penetrance of more than 80%, and only 10–19% having a penetrance of 40–60%. Interpretation: Our study findings highlight the important role of risk modifiers, which could lead to personalised risk assessments for precision prevention and early detection of colorectal cancer for people with Lynch syndrome