Comparison of predictive models, clinical criteria and molecular tumour screening for the identification of patients with Lynch syndrome in a population-based cohort of colorectal cancer patients

Department of Medical Oncology, Hospital Vall d'Hebron, Medical Department of Universitat Autónoma de Barcelona, Spain.
Journal of Medical Genetics (Impact Factor: 5.64). 07/2008; 45(9):557-63. DOI: 10.1136/jmg.2008.059311
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Several models have recently been developed to predict mismatch repair (MMR) gene mutations. Their comparative performance with clinical criteria or universal molecular screening in a population based colorectal cancer (CRC) cohort has not been assessed.
All 1222 CRC from the EPICOLON cohort underwent tumour MMR testing with immunohistochemistry and microsatellite instability, and those with MMR deficiency (n = 91) underwent MLH1/MSH2 germline testing. Sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value (PPV) of the PREMM(1,2) and the Barnetson models for identification of MLH1/MSH2 mutation carriers were evaluated and compared with the revised Bethesda guidelines (RBG), Amsterdam II criteria, and tumour analysis for MMR deficiency. Overall discriminative ability was quantified by the area under the ROC curve (AUC), and calibration was assessed by comparing the average predictions versus the observed prevalence.
Both models had similar AUC (0.93 and 0.92, respectively). Sensitivity of the RBG and a PREMM(1,2) score > or =5% was 100% (95% CI 71% to 100%); a Barnetson score >0.5% missed one mutation carrier (sensitivity 87%, 95% CI 51% to 99%). PPVs of all three strategies were 2-3%. Presence of MMR deficiency increased specificity and PPV of predictive scores (97% and 21% for PREMM(1,2) score > or =5%, and 98% and 21% for Barnetson > or =0.5%, respectively).
The PREMM(1,2) and the Barnetson models offer a quantitative systematic approach to select CRC patients for identification of MLH1/MSH2 mutation carriers with a similar performance to the RBG.

Download full-text


Available from: Ewout W Steyerberg, Jul 07, 2014
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Not Available
    Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium, 2005. IGARSS '05. Proceedings. 2005 IEEE International; 08/2005
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The revised Bethesda Guidelines were published to improve the efficiency of recognizing Lynch syndrome (LS) by identifying LS-related malignancies that should be analyzed for microsatellite instability (MSI). The aim of this study was to evaluate whether MSI analysis was performed in colorectal cancer patients at risk for LS according to the revised Bethesda Guidelines. Patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer in 11 Dutch hospitals in 2005 and 2006 were selected from a regional database. The patients were included in the study if they met any of the following criteria; 1) diagnosed with colorectal cancer <50 years, 2) a second LS-associated tumor prior to the diagnosis of colorectal cancer in 2005/2006, and 3) colorectal cancer <60 years with a tumor displaying mucinous or signet-ring differentiation or medullary growth pattern. Of 1905 colorectal cancer patients, 169 met at least one of the inclusion criteria. MSI analysis had been performed in 23 (14%) of the 169 tumors. MSI status had been determined in 18 of 80 included patients aged <50 years, in 4 of 70 patients with a second LS-related tumor, and in 3 of 41 patients aged <60 years with high-risk pathology features. There is marked underutilization of MSI analysis in patients at risk for LS. As a result LS might be underdiagnosed both in patients with colorectal cancer and in their relatives.
    Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology 01/2009; 44(5):600-4. DOI:10.1080/00365520802706008 · 2.33 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Lynch syndrome is defined by the presence of germline mutations in mismatch repair (MMR) genes. Several models have been recently devised that predict mutation carrier status (Myriad Genetics, Wijnen, Barnetson, PREMM and MMRpro models). Families at moderate-high risk for harboring a Lynch-associated mutation, referred to the BC Cancer Agency (BCCA) Hereditary Cancer Program (HCP), underwent mutation analysis, immunohistochemistry and/or microsatellite testing. Seventy-two tested cases were included. Twenty-five patients were mutation positive (34.7%) and 47 were mutation negative (65.3%). Nineteen of 43 patients who were both microsatellite stable and normal on immunohistochemistry for MLH1 and MSH2 were also genotyped for mutations in these genes; all 19 were negative for MMR gene mutations. Model-derived probabilities of harboring a MMR gene mutation in the proband were calculated and compared to observed results. The area under the ROC curves were 0.75 (95%CI; 0.63-0.87), 0.86 (0.7-0.96), 0.89 (0.82-0.97), 0.89 (0.81-0.98) and 0.93 (0.86-0.99) for the Myriad, Barnetson, Wijnen, MMRpro and PREMM models, respectively. The Amsterdam II criteria had a sensitivity and specificity of 0.76 and 0.74, respectively, in this cohort. The PREMM model demonstrated the best performance for predicting carrier status based on the positive likelihood ratios at the >10%, >20% and >30% probability thresholds. In this referred cohort, the PREMM model had the most favorable concordance index and predictive performance for carrier status based on the positive LR. These prediction models (PREMM, MMRPro and Wijnen) may soon replace the Amsterdam II and revised Bethesda criteria as a prescreening tool for Lynch mutations.
    International Journal of Cancer 01/2009; 126(4):930-9. DOI:10.1002/ijc.24808 · 5.01 Impact Factor