Towards improved detection and management of Lynch Syndrome

Lynch syndrome is the most common hereditary colorectal cancer syndrome, responsible for 3-5% of all colorectal cancer (CRC) cases. In addition, tumors of the endometrium, ovaries, stomach, small bowel, biliary tract, urinary tract, skin and brain occur at higher frequencies compared to the general population. Mutations in at least four different mismatch repair (MMR) genes, including MLH1, MSH2, MSH6 and PMS2, are the underlying defect in Lynch syndrome. The introduction in chapter 2 gives a general overview of different aspects of Lynch syndrome. Clinical features, cancer risks, diagnostic strategies, surveillance and management of Lynch syndrome are discussed. The identification of Lynch syndrome is still suboptimal, mainly due to the lack of specific diagnostic features. Early ident

Mutation prediction models in Lynch syndrome: evaluation in a clinical genetic setting

Background/aims: The identification of Lynch syndrome is hampered by the absence of specific diagnostic features and underutilization of genetic testing. Prediction models have therefore been developed, but they have not been validated for a clinical genetic setting. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the usefulness of currently available prediction models. METHODS: We collected data of 321 index probands who were referred to the department of Clinical Genetics of the Erasmus Medical Center because of a family history of colorectal cancer. These data were used as input for five previously published models. External validity was assessed by discriminative ability (AUC: area under the receiver operating characteristic curve) and calibration. For further insight, predicted probabilities were categorized with cut-offs of 5%, 10%, 20% and 40%. Furthermore, costs of different testing strategies were related to the number of extra detected mutation carriers. RESULTS: Of the 321 index probands, 66 harboured a germline mutation. All models discriminated well between high risk and low risk index probands (AUC: 0.82-0.84). Calibration was well for the Premm1,2 and Edinburgh model, but poor for the other models. Cut-offs could be found for the prediction models where costs could be saved while missing only few mutations. CONCLUSIONS: The Edinburgh and Premm1,2 model were the models with the best performance for an intermediate to high-risk setting. These models may well be of use in clinical practice to select patients for further testing of mismatch repair gene mutations

Biomarker-based prediction of inflammatory bowel disease-related colorectal cancer: a case–control study

Regular colonoscopic surveillance for detection of dysplasia is recommended in longstanding inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), however, its sensitivity is disputed. Screening accuracy may increase by using a biomarker-based surveillance strategy.A case-control study was performed to determine the prognostic value of DNA ploidy and p53 in IBD-related neoplasia. Cases with IBD-related colorectal cancer (CRC), detected in our surveillance program between 1985-2008, were selected and matched with two controls, for age, gender, disease characteristics, interval of follow-up, PSC, and previous surgery. Biopsies were assessed for DNA ploidy, p53, grade of inflammation and neoplasia. Progression to neoplasia was analyzed with Cox regression analysis, adjusting for potentially confounding variables.Adjusting for age, we found statistically significant Hazard ratios (HR) between development of CRC, and low grade dysplasia (HR5.5; 95%CI 2.6-11.5), abnormal DNA ploidy (DNA index (DI) 1.06-1.34, HR4.7; 95%CI 2.9-7.8 and DI>1.34, HR6.6; 95%CI 3.7-11.7) and p53 immunopositivity (HR3.0; 95%CI 1.9-4.7) over time. When adjusting for all confounders, abnormal DNA ploidy (DI 1.06-1.34, HR4.7; 95%CI 2.7-7.9 and DI>1.34, HR5.0; 95%CI 2.5-10.0) and p53 immunopositivity (HR1.7; 95%CI 1.0-3.1) remained statistically significant predictive of neoplasia. In longstanding IBD, abnormal DNA ploidy and p53 immunopositivity are important risk factors of developing CRC. The yield of surveillance may potentially increase by adding these biomarkers to the routine assessment of biopsies

Systematic review: non-endoscopic surveillance for colorectal neoplasia in individuals with Lynch syndrome

Background: Individuals with Lynch syndrome are at high risk for colorectal cancer (CRC). Regular colonoscopies have proven to decrease CRC incidence and mortality. However, colonoscopy is burdensome and interval CRCs still occur. Hence, an accurate, less-invasive screening method that guides the timing of colonoscopy would be of important value.Aim: To outline the performance of non-endoscopic screening modalities for Lynch-associated CRC and adenomas.Methods: Systematic literature search in MEDLINE and EMBASE to identify studies investigating imaging techniques and biomarkers for detection of CRC and adenomas in Lynch syndrome. The QUADAS-2 tool was used for the quality assessment of included studies.Results: Seven of 1332 screened articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Two studies evaluated either CT colonography or MR colonography; both techniques were unable to detect CRC and (advanced) adenomas <10 mm. The other five studies evaluated plasma methylated-SEPTIN9, faecal immunochemical test (FIT), faecal tumour DNA markers (BAT-26, hMLH1, p53, D9S171, APC, D9S162, IFNA and DCC) and faecal microbiome as screening modalities. Sensitivity for CRC varied from 33% (BAT-26) to 70% (methylated-SEPTIN9) to 91% (hMLH1). High specificity (94-100%) for CRC and/or adenomas was observed for methylated-SEPTIN9, FIT and BAT-26. Desulfovibrio was enriched in the stool of patients having adenomas. However, all these studies were characterised by small populations, high/unclear risk of bias and/or low prevalence of adenomas.Conclusions: Imaging techniques are unsuitable for colon surveillance in Lynch syndrome, whereas biomarkers are understudied. Having outlined biomarker research in Lynch-associated and sporadic CRC/adenomas, we believe that these non-invasive markers may hold potential (whether or not combined) for this population. As they could be of great value, (pre-)clinical studies in this field should be prioritised.Cellular mechanisms in basic and clinical gastroenterology and hepatolog

Cancer risk in MLH1, MSH2 and MSH6 mutation carriers; different risk profiles may influence clinical management

Background: Lynch syndrome (LS) is associated with a high risk for colorectal cancer (CRC) and extracolonic malignancies, such as endometrial carcinoma (EC). The risk is dependent of the affected mismatch repair gene. The aim of the present study was to calculate the cumulative risk of LS related cancers in proven MLH1, MSH2 and MSH6 mutation carriers.Methods: The studypopulation consisted out of 67 proven LS families. Clinical information including mutation status and tumour diagnosis was collected. Cumulative risks were calculated and compared using Kaplan Meier survival analysis.Results: MSH6 mutation carriers, both males and females had the lowest risk for developing CRC at age 70 years, 54% and 30% respectively and the age of onset was delayed by 3-5 years in males. With respect to endometrial carcinoma, female MSH6 mutation carriers had the highest risk at age 70 years (61%) compared to MLH1 (25%) and MSH2 (49%). Also, the age of EC onset was delayed by 5-10 years in comparison with MLH1 and MSH2.Conclusions: Although the cumulative lifetime risk of LS related cancer is similar, MLH1, MSH2 and MSH6 mutations seem to cause distinguishable cancer risk profiles. Female MSH6 mutation carriers have a lower CRC risk and a higher risk for developing endometrial carcinoma. As a consequence, surveillance colonoscopy starting at age 30 years instead of 20-25 years is more suitable. Also, prophylactic hysterectomy may be more indicated in female MSH6 mutation carriers compared to MLH1 and MSH2 mutation carriers

MSH6 and PMS2 mutation positive Australian Lynch syndrome families: novel mutations, cancer risk and age of diagnosis of colorectal cancer

Background: Approximately 10% of Lynch syndrome families have a mutation in MSH6 and fewer families have a mutation in PMS2. It is assumed that the cancer incidence is the same in families with mutations in MSH6 as in families with mutations in MLH1/MSH2 but that the disease tends to occur later in life, little is known about families with PMS2 mutations. This study reports on our findings on mutation type, cancer risk and age of diagnosis in MSH6 and PMS2 families. Methods: A total of 78 participants (from 29 families) with a mutation in MSH6 and 7 participants (from 6 families) with a mutation in PMS2 were included in the current study. A database of de-identified patient information was analysed to extract all relevant information such as mutation type, cancer incidence, age of diagnosis and cancer type in this Lynch syndrome cohort. Cumulative lifetime risk was calculated utilising Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. Results: MSH6 and PMS2 mutations represent 10.3% and 1.9%, respectively, of the pathogenic mutations in our Australian Lynch syndrome families. We identified 26 different MSH6 and 4 different PMS2 mutations in the 35 families studied. We report 15 novel MSH6 and 1 novel PMS2 mutations. The estimated cumulative risk of CRC at age 70 years was 61% (similar in males and females) and 65% for endometrial cancer in MSH6 mutation carriers. The risk of developing CRC is different between males and females at age 50 years, which is 34% for males and 21% for females. Conclusion: Novel MSH6 and PMS2 mutations are being reported and submitted to the current databases for identified Lynch syndrome mutations. Our data provides additional information to add to the genotype-phenotype spectrum for both MSH6 and PMS2 mutations

A review on the molecular diagnostics of Lynch syndrome: A central role for the pathology laboratory

Lynch syndrome (LS) is caused by mutations in mismatch repair genes and is characterized by a high cumulative risk for the development of mainly colorectal carcinoma and endometrial carcinoma. Early detection of LS is important since surveillance can reduce morbidity and mortality. However, the diagnosis of LS is complicated by the absence of a pre-morbid phenotype and germline mutation analysis is expensive and time consuming. Therefore it is standard practice to precede germline mutation analysis by a molecular diagnostic work-up of tumours, guided by clinical and pathological criteria, to select patients for germline mutation analysis. In this review we address these molecular analyses, the central role for the pathologist in the selection of patients for germline diagnostics of LS, as well as the molecular basis of LS

Uptake of genetic testing by the children of Lynch syndrome variant carriers across three generations

Many Lynch syndrome (LS) carriers remain unidentified, thus missing early cancer detection and prevention opportunities. Tested probands should inform their relatives about cancer risk and options for genetic counselling and predictive gene testing, but many fail to undergo testing. To assess predictive testing uptake and demographic factors influencing this decision in LS families, a cross-sectional registry-based cohort study utilizing the Finnish Lynch syndrome registry was undertaken. Tested LS variant probands (1184) had 2068 children divided among three generations: 660 parents and 1324 children (first), 445 and 667 (second), and 79 and 77 (third). Of children aged 418 years, 801 (67.4%), 146 (43.2%), and 5 (23.8%), respectively, were genetically tested. Together, 539 first-generation LS variant carriers had 2068 children and grandchildren (3.84 per carrier). Of the 1548 (2.87 per carrier) eligible children, 952 (61.5%) were tested (1.77 per carrier). In multivariate models, age (OR 1.08 per year; 95% CI 1.06-1.10), family gene (OR 2.83; 1.75-4.57 for MLH1 and 2.59; 1.47-4.56 for MSH2 compared with MSH6), one or more tested siblings (OR 6.60; 4.82-9.03), no siblings (OR 4.63; 2.64-8.10), and parent under endoscopic surveillance (OR 5.22; 2.41-11.31) were independent predictors of having genetic testing. Examples of parental adherence to regular surveillance and genetically tested siblings strongly influenced children at 50% risk of LS to undergo predictive gene testing. High numbers of untested, adult at-risk individuals exist even among well-established cohorts of known LS families with good adherence to endoscopic surveillance.Peer reviewe