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

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