Identification of Lynch Syndrome Among Patients With Colorectal Cancer

Department of Gastroenterology, Hospital Clínic, Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red en Enfermedades Hepáticas y Digestivas, Institut d’Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association (Impact Factor: 30.39). 10/2012; 308(15):1555-65. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2012.13088
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Lynch syndrome is the most common form of hereditary colorectal cancer (CRC) and is caused by germline mutations in DNA mismatch repair (MMR) genes. Identification of gene carriers currently relies on germline analysis in patients with MMR-deficient tumors, but criteria to select individuals in whom tumor MMR testing should be performed are unclear.
To establish a highly sensitive and efficient strategy for the identification of MMR gene mutation carriers among CRC probands.
Pooled-data analysis of 4 large cohorts of newly diagnosed CRC probands recruited between 1994 and 2010 (n = 10,206) from the Colon Cancer Family Registry, the EPICOLON project, the Ohio State University, and the University of Helsinki examining personal, tumor-related, and family characteristics, as well as microsatellite instability, tumor MMR immunostaining, and germline MMR mutational status data. MAIN OUTCOME :Performance characteristics of selected strategies (Bethesda guidelines, Jerusalem recommendations, and those derived from a bivariate/multivariate analysis of variables associated with Lynch syndrome) were compared with tumor MMR testing of all CRC patients (universal screening).
Of 10,206 informative, unrelated CRC probands, 312 (3.1%) were MMR gene mutation carriers. In the population-based cohorts (n = 3671 probands), the universal screening approach (sensitivity, 100%; 95% CI, 99.3%-100%; specificity, 93.0%; 95% CI, 92.0%-93.7%; diagnostic yield, 2.2%; 95% CI, 1.7%-2.7%) was superior to the use of Bethesda guidelines (sensitivity, 87.8%; 95% CI, 78.9%-93.2%; specificity, 97.5%; 95% CI, 96.9%-98.0%; diagnostic yield, 2.0%; 95% CI, 1.5%-2.4%; P < .001), Jerusalem recommendations (sensitivity, 85.4%; 95% CI, 77.1%-93.6%; specificity, 96.7%; 95% CI, 96.0%-97.2%; diagnostic yield, 1.9%; 95% CI, 1.4%-2.3%; P < .001), and a selective strategy based on tumor MMR testing of cases with CRC diagnosed at age 70 years or younger and in older patients fulfilling the Bethesda guidelines (sensitivity, 95.1%; 95% CI, 89.8%-99.0%; specificity, 95.5%; 95% CI, 94.7%-96.1%; diagnostic yield, 2.1%; 95% CI, 1.6%-2.6%; P < .001). This selective strategy missed 4.9% of Lynch syndrome cases but resulted in 34.8% fewer cases requiring tumor MMR testing and 28.6% fewer cases undergoing germline mutational analysis than the universal approach.
Universal tumor MMR testing among CRC probands had a greater sensitivity for the identification of Lynch syndrome compared with multiple alternative strategies, although the increase in the diagnostic yield was modest.

  • JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association 10/2012; 308(15):1581-3. DOI:10.1001/jama.2012.14171 · 30.39 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer HNPCC, Lynch syndrome) is a genetic disease of autosomal dominant inheritance. It is caused by a mutation in one of four genes of the DNA mismatch repair system and confers a markedly increased risk for various types of cancer, particularly of the colon and the endometrium. Its prevalence in the general population is about 1 in 500, and it causes about 2% to 3% of all colorectal cancers. Lynch syndrome is diagnosed in two steps: If it is suspected (because a patient develops cancer at an unusually young age or because of familial clustering), the tumor tissue is analyzed for evidence of deficient mismatch repair (microsatellite instability, loss of mismatch repair protein expression). If such evidence is found, a genetic mutation is sought. The identification of a pathogenic mutation confirms the diagnosis in the patient and enables predictive testing of other family members. Diagnostic evaluations for Lynch syndrome should be carried out with appropriate genetic counseling. Selective literature review. Prospective cohort studies from Germany, Finland and the Netherlands have shown that colorectal cancers detected by systematic colonoscopic surveillance tend to be at an earlier stage than those that are discovered after the patients present with symptoms. The Finnish study also showed an overall reduction in cancer risk from colonoscopic polypectomy at regular intervals. The studies conducted so far have not yet clearly documented the putative benefit of an individualized, risk-adapted surveillance strategy. Until this is done, patients with Lynch syndrome and healthy carriers of causative mutations should be monitored with annual colonoscopy and (for women) annual gynecological examination.
    Deutsches Ärzteblatt International 01/2013; 110(3):32-8. DOI:10.3238/arztebl.2013.0032 · 3.61 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Despite remarkable progress in proteomic methods, including improved detection limits and sensitivity, these methods have not yet been established in routine clinical practice. The main limitations, which prevent their integration into clinics are high cost of equipment, the need for highly-trained personnel, and last, but not least, the establishment of reliable and accurate protein biomarkers or panels of protein biomarkers for detection of neoplasms. Furthermore, the complexity and heterogeneity of most solid tumours present obstacles in the discovery of specific protein signatures, which could be used for early detection of cancers, for prediction of disease outcome, and for determining the response to specific therapies. However, cancer proteome, as the end-point of pathological processes that underlie cancer development and progression, could represent an important source for the discovery of new biomarkers and molecular targets for tailored therapies.
    The Scientific World Journal 01/2013; in press(on-line):1-52. · 1.73 Impact Factor
Show more