Lower Cancer Incidence in Amsterdam-I Criteria Families Without Mismatch Repair Deficiency: Familial Colorectal Cancer Type X

University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association (Impact Factor: 35.29). 05/2005; 293(16):1979-85. DOI: 10.1001/jama.293.16.1979
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Approximately 60% of families that meet the Amsterdam-I criteria (AC-I) for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) have a hereditary abnormality in a DNA mismatch repair (MMR) gene. Cancer incidence in AC-I families with MMR gene mutations is reported to be very high, but cancer incidence for individuals in AC-I families with no evidence of an MMR defect is unknown.
To determine if cancer risks in AC-I families with no apparent deficiency in DNA MMR are different from cancer risks in AC-I families with DNA MMR abnormalities.
Identification (1997-2001) of 161 AC-I pedigrees from multiple population- and clinic-based sources in North America and Germany, with families grouped into those with (group A) or without (group B) MMR deficiency by tumor testing. A total of 3422 relatives were included in the analyses.
Cancer incidence in groups A and B (excluding the 3 affected members used to define each pedigree as AC-I) and computed age- and sex-adjusted standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data.
Group A families from both population- and clinic-based series showed increased incidence of the HNPCC-related cancers. Group B families showed increased incidence only for colorectal cancer (SIR, 2.3; 95% confidence interval, 1.7-3.0) and to a lesser extent than group A (SIR, 6.1; 95% confidence interval, 5.2-7.2) (P<.001).
Families who fulfill AC-I criteria but who have no evidence of a DNA MMR defect do not share the same cancer incidence as families with HNPCC-Lynch syndrome (ie, hereditary MMR deficiency). Relatives in such families have a lower incidence of colorectal cancer than those in families with HNPCC-Lynch syndrome, and incidence may not be increased for other cancers. These families should not be described or counseled as having HNPCC-Lynch syndrome. To facilitate distinguishing these entities, the designation of "familial colorectal cancer type X" is suggested to describe this type of familial aggregation of colorectal cancer.

Download full-text


Available from: Kari G Chaffee, Sep 27, 2015
47 Reads
  • Source
    • "The following tumour characteristics were abstracted from the clinical histopathology report and/or from pathologist review: location, size, nodal status, differentiation, histologic type, and presence/absence of peritumoural lymphocytes, Crohn's-like reaction, tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes, and venous invasion. MSI and/or IHC were performed on all tumour samples (Lindor et al, 2005; Newcomb et al, 2007). Cases were allocated to one of the three groups: (1) 'LS' (n ¼ 312) for cases meeting AC1 and whose tumours were classified as MSI (MSI-high and/or MMR-deficient), (2) 'FCCTX' (n ¼ 177) for cases meeting AC1, but with non-MSI tumours, or (3) 'non-AC1' (n ¼ 12,175) for the remainder of CRC cases whose family histories did not meet AC1. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Familial Colorectal Cancer Type X (FCCTX) is defined as individuals with colorectal cancer (CRC) who families meet Amsterdam Criteria-1 (AC1), but whose tumours are DNA-mismatch-repair-proficient, unlike Lynch syndrome (LS). FCCTX does not have an increased risk of extra-colonic cancers. This analysis compares epidemiologic and clinicopathologic features among FCCTX, LS, and ‘non-familial' (non-AC1) CRC cases. Methods: From the Colon Cancer Family Registry, FCCTX (n=173), LS (n=303), and non-AC1 (n=9603) CRC cases were identified. Questionnaire-based epidemiologic information and CRC pathologic features were compared across case groups using polytomous logistic regression. Results: Compared with LS, FCCTX cases were less likely to be current (vs never) smokers; have a proximal subsite (vs rectal) tumour; or have mucinous histology, poor differentiation, or tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes. There were no observed differences in co-morbidities or medication usage. Conclusions: FCCTX were less likely to be current tobacco users; other exposures were similar between these groups. Histopathologic differences highly suggestive of LS CRCs do not appear to be shared by FCCTX.
    British Journal of Cancer 06/2014; 111(3). DOI:10.1038/bjc.2014.309 · 4.84 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "The Bethesda Guidelines formulated in 1996 and revised in 2004 [48,49] incorporate broader age and family history criteria, but also include the unique histopathological features associated with Lynch tumors (tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, signet ring cells, mucinous and poorly differentiated histology) as a fifth criteria (Table 2 ). The novelty of the Bethesda Guidelines was the introducing of MSI testing in colorectal tumors that fulfill the criteria as a mandatory step in the diagnosis of Lynch Syndrome. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although multimodal treatment has brought important benefit, there is still great heterogeneity regarding the indication and response to chemotherapy in Stage II and III, and individual variations related to both overall survival and toxicity of new therapies in metastatic disease or tumor relapse. Recent research in molecular biology led to the development of a large scale of genetic biomarkers, but their clinical use is not concordant with the high expectations. The Aim of this review is to identify and discuss the molecular markers with proven clinical applicability as prognostic and/or predictive factors in CRC and also to establish a feasible algorithm of molecular testing, as routine practice, in the personalized, multidisciplinary approach of colorectal cancer patients in our country. Despite the revolu¬tion that occurred in the field of molecular marker research, only Serum CEA, Immunohistochemical analysis of mismatch repair proteins and PCR testing for KRAS and BRAF mutations have confirmed their clinical utility in the management of colorectal cancer. Their implementation in the current practice should partially resolve some of the controversies related to this heterogenic pathology, in matters of prognosis in different TNM stages, stage II patient risk stratification, diagnosis of hereditary CRC and likelihood of benefit from anti EGFR therapy in metastatic disease. The proposed algorithms of molecular testing are very useful but still imperfect and require further validation and constant optimization.
    Journal of medicine and life 03/2014; 7(1):17-26.
  • Source
    • "The definition of what comprises LS has been refined in recent years with the initiation of molecular genetic testing and tumor analyses (Weissman et al. 2011). Lynch syndrome (LS) is now the commonly accepted designation (Boland 2005; Jass 2006; Lindor et al. 2005) and refers to instances where there is molecular evidence of a germline MMR defect. Familial colon cancer and/or families that meet Amsterdam I criteria (ACI) in the absence of a MMR defect are sometimes referred to as " Familial Colorectal Cancer Type X " (Jass 2006; Lindor et al. 2005; Lindor 2009). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Identifying individuals who have Lynch syndrome (LS) involves a complex diagnostic work up that includes taking a detailed family history and a combination of various genetic and immunohistochemical tests. The National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) and the Collaborative Group of the Americas on Inherited Colorectal Cancer (CGA-ICC) have come together to publish this clinical practice testing guideline for the evaluation of LS. The purpose of this practice guideline is to provide guidance and a testing algorithm for LS as well as recommendations on when to offer testing. This guideline does not replace a consultation with a genetics professional. This guideline includes explanations in support of this and a summary of background data. While this guideline is not intended to serve as a review of LS, it includes a discussion of background information on LS, and cites a number of key publications which should be reviewed for a more in-depth understanding of LS. These guidelines are intended for genetic counselors, geneticists, gastroenterologists, surgeons, medical oncologists, obstetricians and gynecologists, nurses and other healthcare providers who evaluate patients for LS.
    Journal of Genetic Counseling 12/2011; 21(4):484-93. DOI:10.1007/s10897-011-9465-7 · 2.24 Impact Factor
Show more