Radiosensitizing Effects of Irinotecan versus Oxaliplatin Alone and in Combination with 5-Fluorouracil on Human Colorectal Cancer Cells

To date, oxaliplatin and irinotecan are used in combination with 5-flourouracil (5-FU) for metastatic colorectal cancer. In this study it was tested whether oxaliplatin and irinotecan and their combinations with 5-FU have an enhanced effect when treated simultaneously with ionizing radiation. In addition, it should be compared whether one combination therapy is more effective than the other. Colorectal cancer cells (HT-29) were treated with irinotecan or oxaliplatin, both alone and in combination with 5-FU, and subsequently irradiated. The cell growth, metabolic activity and proliferation of cells were investigated, and the clonogenic survival was determined. Furthermore, the assessment of radiation-induced DNA damage and the influence of the drugs and their combinations on DNA damage repair was investigated. Treatment with irinotecan or oxaliplatin in combination with 5-FU inhibited proliferation and metabolic activity as well as clonogenic survival and the DNA damage repair capacity of the tumor cells. The comparison of oxaliplatin and irinotecan with simultaneous irradiation showed the same effect of both drugs. When oxaliplatin or irinotecan was combined with 5-FU, tumor cell survival was significantly lower than with monotherapy; however, there was no superiority of either combination regimen. Our results have shown that the combination of 5-FU and irinotecan is as effective as the combination of 5-FU with oxaliplatin. Therefore, our data support the use of FOLFIRI as a radiosensitizer

No Difference in Colorectal Cancer Incidence or Stage at Detection by Colonoscopy Among 3 Countries With Different Lynch Syndrome Surveillance Policies

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Patients with Lynch syndrome are at high risk for developing colorectal cancer (CRC). Regular colonoscopic surveillance is recommended, but there is no international consensus on the appropriate interval. We investigated whether shorter intervals are associated with lower CRC incidence and detection at earlier stages by comparing the surveillance policies in Germany, which evaluates patients by colonoscopy annually, in the Netherlands (patients evaluated at 1-2-year intervals), and Finland (patients evaluated at 2-3-year intervals). METHODS: We collected data from 16,327 colonoscopic examinations (conducted from 1984 through 2015) of 2747 patients with Lynch syndrome (pathogenic variants in the MLH1, MSH2, or MSH6 genes) from the German HNPCC Consortium, the Dutch Lynch Syndrome Registry, and the Finnish Lynch Syndrome Registry. Our analysis included 23,309 person-years of cumulative observation time. Time from the index colonoscopy to incident CRC or adenoma was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method; groups were compared using the log-rank test. We performed multivariable Cox regression analyses to identify factors associated with CRC risk (diagnosis of CRC before the index colonoscopy, sex, mutation, age, and presence of adenoma at the index colonoscopy). RESULTS: The 10-year cumulative CRC incidence ranged from 4.1% to 18.4% in patients with low-and high-risk profiles, respectively, and varied with age, sex, mutation, and prior detection of CRC or adenoma. Observed colonoscopy intervals were largely in accordance with the country-specific recommendations. We found no significant differences in cumulative CRC incidence or CRC stage at detection among countries. There was no significant association between CRC stage and [GRAPHICS] time since last colonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: We did not find a significant reduction in CRC incidence or stage of detection in Germany (annual colonoscopic surveillance) than in countries with longer surveillance intervals (the Netherlands, with 1-2-year intervals, and Finland, with 2-3-year intervals). Overall, we did not find a significant association of the interval with CRC risk, although age, sex, mutation, and prior neoplasia were used to individually modify colonoscopy intervals. Studies are needed to develop and validate risk-adapted surveillance strategies and to identify patients who benefit from shorter surveillance intervals

Randomized Comparison of Surveillance Intervals in Familial Colorectal Cancer

Purpose Colonoscopic surveillance is recommended for individuals with familial colorectal cancer (CRC). However, the appropriate screening interval has not yet been determined. The aim of this randomized trial was to compare a 3-year with a 6-year screening interval. Patients and Methods Individuals between ages 45 and 65 years with one first-degree relative with CRC age <50 years or two first-degree relatives with CRC were selected. Patients with zero to two adenomas at baseline were randomly assigned to one of two groups: group A (colonoscopy at 6 years) or group B (colonoscopy at 3 and 6 years). The primary outcome measure was advanced adenomatous polyps (AAPs). Risk factors studied included sex, age, type of family history, and baseline endoscopic findings. Results A total of 528 patients were randomly assigned (group A, n = 262; group B, n = 266). Intention-to-treat analysis showed no significant difference in the proportion of patients with AAPs at the first follow-up examination at 6 years in group A (6.9%) versus 3 years in group B (3.5%). Also, the proportion of patients with AAPs at the final follow-up examination at 6 years in group A (6.9%) versus 6 years in group B (3.4%) was not significantly different. Only AAPs at baseline was a significant predictor for the presence of AAPs at first follow-up. After correction for the difference in AAPs at baseline, differences between the groups in the rate of AAPs at first follow-up and at the final examination were statistically significant. Conclusion In view of the relatively low rate of AAPs at 6 years and the absence of CRC in group A, we consider a 6-year surveillance interval appropriate. A surveillance interval of 3 years might be considered in patients with AAPs and patients with three adenomas. (C) 2015 by American Society of Clinical Oncolog

Associations of Pathogenic Variants in MLH1, MSH2, and MSH6 With Risk of Colorectal Adenomas and Tumors and With Somatic Mutations in Patients With Lynch Syndrome

Background & Aims. Lynch syndrome is caused by variants in DNA mismatch repair (MMR) genes and associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). In patients with Lynch syndrome, CRCs can develop via different pathways. We studied associations between Lynch syndrome-associated variants in MMR genes and risks of adenoma and CRC and somatic mutations in APC and CTNNB1 in tumors in an international cohort of patients. Methods. We combined clinical and molecular data from 3 studies. We obtained clinical data from 2747 patients with Lynch syndrome associated with variants in MLH1, MSH2, or MSH6 from Germany, the Netherlands, and Finland who received at least 2 surveillance colonoscopies and were followed for a median time of 7.8 years for development of adenomas or CRC. We performed DNA sequence analyses of 48 colorectal tumors (from 16 patients with mutations in MLH1, 29 patients with mutations in MSH2, and 3 with mutations in MSH6) for somatic mutations in APC and CTNNB1. Results. Risk of advanced adenoma in 10 y was 17.8% in patients with pathogenic variants in MSH2 vs 7.7% in MLH1 (P<.001). Higher proportions of patients with pathogenic variants in MLH1 or MSH2 developed CRC in 10 y (11.3% and 11.4%) than patients with pathogenic variants in MSH6 (4.7%) (P=.001 and P=.003 for MLH1 and MSH2 vs MSH6, respectively). Somatic mutations in APC were found in 75% of tumors from patients with pathogenic variants in MSH2 vs 11% in MLH1 (P=.015). Somatic mutations in CTNNB1 were found in 50% of tumors from patients with pathogenic variants in MLH1 vs 7% in MSH2 (P=.002). None of the 3 tumors with pathogenic variants in MSH6 had a mutation in CTNNB1, but all had mutations in APC. Conclusions. In an analysis of clinical and DNA sequence data from patients with Lynch syndrome from 3 countries, we associated pathogenic variants in MMR genes with risk of adenoma and CRC, and somatic mutations in APC and CTNNB1 in colorectal tumors. If these findings are confirmed, surveillance guidelines might be adjusted based on MMR gene variants.peerReviewe

Associations of Pathogenic Variants in MLH1, MSH2, and MSH6 With Risk of Colorectal Adenomas and Tumors and With Somatic Mutations in Patients With Lynch Syndrome

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Lynch syndrome is caused by variants in DNA mismatch repair (MMR) genes and associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). In patients with Lynch syndrome, CRCs can develop via different pathways. We studied associations between Lynch syndrome-associated variants in MMR genes and risks of adenoma and CRC and somatic mutations in APC and CTNNB1 in tumors in an international cohort of patients. METHODS: We combined clinical and molecular data from 3 studies. We obtained clinical data from 2747 patients with Lynch syndrome associated with variants in MLH1, MSH2, or MSH6 from Germany, the Netherlands, and Finland who received at least 2 surveillance colonoscopies and were followed for a median time of 7.8 years for development of adenomas or CRC. We performed DNA sequence analyses of 48 colorectal tumors (from 16 patients with mutations in MLH1, 29 patients with mutations in MSH2, and 3 with mutations in MSH6) for somatic mutations in APC and CTNNB1. RESULTS: Risk of advanced adenoma in 10 years was 17.8% in patients with pathogenic variants in MSH2 vs 7.7% in MLH1 (P <.001). Higher proportions of patients with pathogenic variants in MLH1 or MSH2 developed CRC in 10 years (11.3% and 11.4%) than patients with pathogenic variants in MSH6 (4.7%) (P = .001 and P = .003 for MLH1 and MSH2 vs MSH6, respectively). Somatic mutations in APC were found in 75% of tumors from patients with pathogenic variants in MSH2 vs 11% in MLH1 (P = .015). Somatic mutations in CTNNB1 were found in 50% of tumors from patients with pathogenic variants in MLH1 vs 7% in MSH2 (P = .002). None of the 3 tumors with pathogenic variants in MSH6 had a mutation in CTNNB1, but all had mutations in APC. CONCLUSIONS: In an analysis of clinical and DNA sequence data from patients with Lynch syndrome from 3 countries, we associated pathogenic variants in MMR genes with risk of adenoma and CRC, and somatic mutations in APC and CTNNB1 in colorectal tumors. If these findings are confirmed, surveillance guidelines might be adjusted based on MMR gene variants