No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Low Referral Rates for Genetic Assessment of Patients With Multiple Adenomas in United Kingdom Bowel Cancer Screening Programs
Abstract
Background:
Approximately one in twenty cases of colorectal cancer are caused by monogenic syndromes. Published guidelines recommend that patients with ten or more adenomas be referred for genetic testing, based on evidence that colorectal cancer risk is associated with adenoma multiplicity.
Objective:
The aim of this study was to determine adherence to guidelines on referral for genetic screening in patients with ten or more adenomas.
Design:
A cross-sectional study was performed of prospectively collected data from the United Kingdom Bowel Cancer Screening Program between May 2007 and June 2018. Only histologically confirmed adenomas were included. Clinicopathological data were recorded from patient records and referrals to clinical genetics services were ascertained.
Setting:
Data were obtained from three centers in London, United Kingdom.
Patients:
A total of 17,450 subjects underwent colonoscopy following an abnormal fecal occult blood test.
Main outcome measures:
We quantified patients with ten or more adenomas and the proportion referred for genetic screening.
Results:
The adenoma detection rate was 50.6% amongst 17,450 patients who underwent colonoscopy (8,831 had one or more adenomas). 347 patients (2.0%) had 10 or more adenomas. Patients with 10 or more adenomas were more likely to be male than those with less than 10 adenomas (76.9% vs. 53.4%; p<0.0001). A family history was collected in 37.8% of the multiple adenoma population. Of 347 patients with 10 or more adenomas, 28 (8.1%) were referred for genetic assessment.
Limitations:
All three screening centers were in a single city. No genetic outcome data were available to permit analysis of actual rates of inherited cancer syndromes in this population.
Conclusions:
In this study, almost one in fifty patients had ten or more adenomas. Despite guidelines advising genetic testing in this group, referral rates are low. A referral pathway and management strategies should be established to address this patient population. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B630.
The British Society of Gastroenterology in 2020 updated its guidelines around the management of hereditary colorectal cancer. This document includes recommendations for the management of patients with serrated polyposis in combination with updated (2019) post-polypectomy surveillance guidelines, which replaced the 2017 position statement on serrated polyps in the colon and rectum. This article is intended to serve as an introduction to serrated polyposis, current practice recommendations and the challenges associated with the diagnosis and treatment of serrated polyposis. It covers the definition of serrated polyps and serrated polyposis, the endoscopic approaches for optimising detection and the follow up care that is put in place, for both patients and their families from the perspective of a nurse endoscopist.
Heritable factors account for approximately 35% of colorectal cancer (CRC) risk, and almost 30% of the population in the UK have a family history of CRC. The quantification of an individual’s lifetime risk of gastrointestinal cancer may incorporate clinical and molecular data, and depends on accurate phenotypic assessment and genetic diagnosis. In turn this may facilitate targeted risk-reducing interventions, including endoscopic surveillance, preventative surgery and chemoprophylaxis, which provide opportunities for cancer prevention. This guideline is an update from the 2010 British Society of Gastroenterology/Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (BSG/ACPGBI) guidelines for colorectal screening and surveillance in moderate and high-risk groups; however, this guideline is concerned specifically with people who have increased lifetime risk of CRC due to hereditary factors, including those with Lynch syndrome, polyposis or a family history of CRC. On this occasion we invited the UK Cancer Genetics Group (UKCGG), a subgroup within the British Society of Genetic Medicine (BSGM), as a partner to BSG and ACPGBI in the multidisciplinary guideline development process. We also invited external review through the Delphi process by members of the public as well as the steering committees of the European Hereditary Tumour Group (EHTG) and the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). A systematic review of 10 189 publications was undertaken to develop 67 evidence and expert opinion-based recommendations for the management of hereditary CRC risk. Ten research recommendations are also prioritised to inform clinical management of people at hereditary CRC risk.
This study aimed to determine the prevalence of APC-associated familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) and MUTYH-associated polyposis (MAP) in a large cohort, taking into account factors as adenoma count and year of diagnosis. All application forms used to send patients in for APC and MUTYH variant analysis between 1992 and 2017 were collected (n = 2082). Using the data provided on the application form, the APC and biallelic MUTYH prevalence was determined and possible predictive factors were examined using multivariate multinomial logistic regression analysis in SPSS. The prevalence of disease causing variants in the APC gene significantly increases with adenoma count while MAP shows a peak prevalence in individuals with 50–99 adenomas. Logistic regression analysis shows significant odds ratios for adenoma count, age at diagnosis, and, interestingly, a decline in the chance of finding a variant in either gene over time. Moreover, in 22% (43/200) of patients with FAP-related extracolonic manifestations a variant was identified. The overall detection rates are above 10% for patients with >10 adenomas aged <60 and >20 adenomas aged <70. Patients with variants outside these criteria had FAP-related extracolonic manifestations, colorectal cancer aged <40, somatic KRAS c.34G > T variant in the tumor or a first-degree relative with >10 adenomas. Therefore, APC and MUTYH testing in patients with >10 adenomas aged <60 and with >20 adenomas aged <70 is advised. Almost all FAP and MAP patients not meeting these criteria showed other characteristics that can be used as an indication to prompt genetic testing.
Sara Koo,1 Laura Jane Neilson,1 Christian Von Wagner,2 Colin John Rees1,3,4 1Department of Gastroenterology, South Tyneside District Hospital, South Shields, 2Health Behaviour Research Centre, University College London, London, 3School of Medicine, Pharmacy and Health, Durham University, Stockton on Tees, 4Northern Institute for Cancer Research, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK Abstract: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer in the UK. The English National Health Service (NHS) Bowel Cancer Screening Program (BCSP) was introduced in 2006 to improve CRC mortality by earlier detection of CRC. It is now offered to patients aged 60–74 years and involves a home-based guaiac fecal occult blood test (gFOBt) biennially, and if positive, patients are offered a colonoscopy. This has been associated with a 15% reduction in mortality. In 2013, an additional arm to BCSP was introduced, Bowelscope. This offers patients aged 55 years a one-off flexible sigmoidoscopy, and if several adenomas are found, the patients are offered a completion colonoscopy. BCSP has been associated with a significant stage shift in CRC diagnosis; however, the uptake of bowel cancer screening remains lower than that for other screening programs. Further work is required to understand the reasons for nonparticipation of patients to ensure optimal uptake. A change of gFOBt kit to the fecal immunochemical tests (FIT) in the English BCSP may further increase patient participation. This, in addition to increased yield of neoplasia and cancers with the FIT kit, is likely to further improve CRC outcomes in the screened population. Keywords: colorectal cancer, flexible sigmoidoscopy screening, Bowelscope, CT colongraphy, fecal immunochemical tests, gFOBt screening, uptake, quality in colonoscopy
Objectives:
In 2014, a population-screening program using immuno-faecal occult blood testing (I-FOBT) has started in the Netherlands. The aims of this study were to evaluate the proportion of individuals in the Dutch screening program with a positive I-FOBT that fulfill the criteria for familial colorectal cancer (FCC) and to evaluate the proportion of participants that needs genetic counseling or colonoscopic surveillance.
Material and methods:
This retrospective observational study was performed in two large hospitals. Individuals aged between 55 and 75 years with a positive I-FOBT that underwent colonoscopy were included. A detailed family history was obtained in all individuals.
Results:
A total of 657 individuals with a positive I-FOBT test underwent colonoscopy. A total of 120 (18.3%) participants were found to have a positive family history for CRC, 20 (3.0%) fulfilled the FCC criteria, 4 (0.6%) the Bethesda guidelines and 1 (0.2%) participant the Amsterdam criteria. Multiple adenomas (>10) were found in 21 (3.2%) participants. No cases of serrated polyposis were identified. Based on these criteria and guidelines, a total of 35 (5.3%) required referral to the clinical geneticist and the relatives of 20 (3.0%) participants should be referred for surveillance colonoscopy.
Conclusion:
Obtaining a detailed family history at the time of intake of participants with a positive I-FOBT in the Dutch surveillance program increased the identification of participants with familial CRC.
Disclaimer: The practice guidelines of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) and the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) are developed by members of the ACMG and NSGC to assist medical geneticists, genetic counselors, and other health-care providers in making decisions about appropriate management of genetic concerns, including access to and/or delivery of services. Each practice guideline focuses on a clinical or practice-based issue and is the result of a review and analysis of current professional literature believed to be reliable. As such, information and recommendations within the ACMG and NSGC joint practice guidelines reflect the current scientific and clinical knowledge at the time of publication, are current only as of their publication date, and are subject to change without notice as advances emerge. In addition, variations in practice, which take into account the needs of the individual patient and the resources and limitations unique to the institution or type of practice, may warrant approaches, treatments, and/or procedures that differ from the recommendations outlined in this guideline. Therefore, these recommendations should not be construed as dictating an exclusive course of management, nor does the use of such recommendations guarantee a particular outcome. Genetic counseling practice guidelines are never intended to displace a health-care provider’s best medical judgment based on the clinical circumstances of a particular patient or patient population. Practice guidelines are published by the ACMG or the NSGC for educational and informational purposes only, and neither the ACMG nor the NSGC “approve” or “endorse” any specific methods, practices, or sources of information.
Cancer genetic consultation is an important aspect of the care of individuals at increased risk of a hereditary cancer syndrome. Yet several patient, clinician, and system-level barriers hinder identification of individuals appropriate for cancer genetics referral. Thus, the purpose of this practice guideline is to present a single set of comprehensive personal and family history criteria to facilitate identification and maximize appropriate referral of at-risk individuals for cancer genetic consultation. To develop this guideline, a literature search for hereditary cancer susceptibility syndromes was conducted using PubMed. In addition, GeneReviews and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines were reviewed when applicable. When conflicting guidelines were identified, the evidence was ranked as follows: position papers from national and professional organizations ranked highest, followed by consortium guidelines, and then peer-reviewed publications from single institutions. The criteria for cancer genetic consultation referral are provided in two formats: (i) tables that list the tumor type along with the criteria that, if met, would warrant a referral for a cancer genetic consultation and (ii) an alphabetical list of the syndromes, including a brief summary of each and the rationale for the referral criteria that were selected. Consider referral for a cancer genetic consultation if your patient or any of their first-degree relatives meet any of these referral criteria.
Genet Med advance online publication 13 November 2014
Lynch syndrome (LS) is an inherited autosomal dominant disorder characterised by an increased risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) and other cancers, and caused by mutations in the deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) mismatch repair genes.
Objective
To evaluate the accuracy and cost-effectiveness of strategies to identify LS in newly diagnosed early-onset CRC patients (aged
Objectives: The British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) Cancer Group designed a survey to determine how we might understand and improve the service for patients at elevated risk of hereditary colorectal cancer (CRC).
Design and Setting: United Kingdom (UK) gastroenterologists, colorectal surgeons, and oncologists were invited by email to complete a 10 point questionnaire. This was cascaded to 1,793 members of the Royal College of Radiologists (RCR), Association of Cancer Physicians (ACP), the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI), as well as BSG members.
Results: Three hundred and eighty-two members responded to the survey, an overall response rate of 21.3%. Although 69% of respondents felt there was an adequate service for these higher risk patients, 64% believed that another clinician was undertaking this work. There was no apparent formal patient pathway in 52% of centres, and only 33% of centres maintain a registry of these patients. Tumour block testing for Lynch Syndrome is not usual practice. Many appeared to be unaware of the BSG/ACPGBI UK guidelines for the management of these patients.
Conclusions: There is wide variability in local management and in subsequent clinical pathways for hereditary CRC patients. There is a perception that they are being managed by 'another', unspecified clinician. National guidelines are not adhered to. We therefore recommend improved education, well defined pathways and cyclical audit in order to improve care of patients with hereditary CRC risk.
Familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) is a dominantly inherited condition caused by germline mutation of the APC gene resulting in formation of numerous large bowel adenomas in late childhood or adolescence. Unless these are removed, colorectal cancer inevitably develops. Prophylactic surgical treatment is required to prevent this. In surgical decision making, considerations should include genotype-phenotype correlation, perioperative morbidity and risk of impaired sexual and reproductive function in young patients after major pelvic surgery. Colectomy with ileorectal anastomosis remains an appropriate prophylactic procedure in many patients. However, in those with high-density polyposis or a genotype predictive of aggressive disease, restorative proctocolectomy is preferable. There is a range of other features, as FAP is essentially a systemic disease. These include duodenal and peri-ampullary adenomas and carcinoma, desmoid tumors, papillary-type thyroid carcinoma and pancreatic carcinoma among others. With improved management that reduces the risk of colorectal cancer, these extracolonic manifestations have become of increasing clinical significance. For all FAP patients, including those undergoing proctocolectomy, thorough surveillance is of vital importance as there remains a risk of developing neoplasia. Despite advances in surgical techniques, screening and surveillance, life expectancy in patients with FAP is still less than that of the general population.
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.
Introduction
The Bowel Cancer Screening Programme in England began operating in 2006 with the aim of full roll out across England by December 2009. Subjects aged 60–69 are being invited to complete three guaiac faecal occult blood tests (6 windows) every 2 years. The programme aims to reduce mortality from colorectal cancer by 16% in those invited for screening.
Methods
All subjects eligible for screening in the National Health Service in England are included on one database, which is populated from National Health Service registration data covering about 98% of the population of England. This analysis is only of subjects invited to participate in the first (prevalent) round of screening.
Results
By October 2008 almost 2.1 million had been invited to participate, with tests being returned by 49.6% of men and 54.4% of women invited. Uptake ranged between 55–60% across the four provincial hubs which administer the programme but was lower in the London hub (40%). Of the 1.08 million returning tests 2.5% of men and 1.5% of women had an abnormal test. 17 518 (10 608 M, 6910 F) underwent investigation, with 98% having a colonoscopy as their first investigation. Cancer (n=1772) and higher risk adenomas (n=6543) were found in 11.6% and 43% of men and 7.8% and 29% of women investigated, respectively. 71% of cancers were ‘early’ (10% polyp cancer, 32% Dukes A, 30% Dukes B) and 77% were left-sided (29% rectal, 45% sigmoid) with only 14% being right-sided compared with expected figures of 67% and 24% for left and right side from UK cancer registration.
Conclusion
In this first round of screening in England uptake and fecal occult blood test positivity was in line with that from the pilot and the original European trials. Although there was the expected improvement in cancer stage at diagnosis, the proportion with left-sided cancers was higher than expected.
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most frequent cancer in developed countries. Newfoundland has the highest incidence of CRC in Canada and the highest rate of familial CRC yet reported in the world. To determine the impact of mutations in known CRC susceptibility genes and the contribution of the known pathways to the development of hereditary CRC, an incident cohort of 750 patients with CRC (708 different families) from the Newfoundland population was studied.
Microsatellite instability (MSI) testing was performed on tumours, together with immunohistochemistry analysis for mismatch repair (MMR) genes. Where indicated, DNA sequencing and multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplifications of MMR genes and APC was undertaken. DNA from all patients was screened for MUTYH mutations. The presence of the BRAF variant, p.V600E, and of MLH1 promoter methylation was also tested in tumours.
4.6% of patients fulfilled the Amsterdam criteria (AC), and an additional 44.6% fulfilled the revised Bethesda criteria. MSI-high (MSI-H) was observed in 10.7% (n=78) of 732 tumours. In 3.6% (n=27) of patients, CRC was attributed to 12 different inherited mutations in six known CRC-related genes associated with chromosomal instability or MSI pathways. Seven patients (0.9%) carried a mutation in APC or biallelic mutations in MUTYH. Of 20 patients (2.7%) with mutations in MMR genes, 14 (70%) had one of two MSH2 founder mutations. 17 of 28 (61%) AC families did not have a genetic cause identified, of which 15 kindreds fulfilled the criteria for familial CRC type X (FCCTX).
Founder mutations accounted for only 2.1% of cases and this was insufficient to explain the high rate of familial CRC. Many of the families classified as FCCTX may have highly penetrant mutations segregating in a Mendelian-like manner. These families will be important for identifying additional CRC susceptibility loci.
The British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and the Association of Coloproctology for Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI) commissioned this update of the 2002 guidance. The aim, as before, is to provide guidance on the appropriateness, method and frequency of screening for people at moderate and high risk from colorectal cancer. This guidance provides some new recommendations for those with inflammatory bowel disease and for those at moderate risk resulting from a family history of colorectal cancer. In other areas guidance is relatively unchanged, but the recent literature was reviewed and is included where appropriate.
Germ-line mutations in the mismatch-repair genes MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2 lead to the development of the Lynch syndrome (hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer), conferring a strong susceptibility to cancer. We assessed the frequency of such mutations in patients with colorectal cancer and examined strategies for molecular screening to identify patients with the syndrome.
Patients with a new diagnosis of colorectal adenocarcinoma at the major hospitals in metropolitan Columbus, Ohio, were eligible for the study. Genotyping of the tumor for microsatellite instability was the primary screening method. Among patients whose screening results were positive for microsatellite instability, we searched for germ-line mutations in the MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2 genes with the use of immunohistochemical staining for mismatch-repair proteins, genomic sequencing, and deletion studies. Family members of carriers of the mutations were counseled, and those found to be at risk were offered mutation testing.
Of 1066 patients enrolled in the study, 208 (19.5 percent) had microsatellite instability, and 23 of these patients had a mutation causing the Lynch syndrome (2.2 percent). Among the 23 probands with the Lynch syndrome, 10 were more than 50 years of age and 5 did not meet the Amsterdam criteria or the Bethesda guidelines for the diagnosis of hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (including the use of age and family history to identify patients at high risk for the Lynch syndrome). Genotyping for microsatellite instability alone and immunohistochemical analysis alone each failed to identify two probands. In the families of 21 of the probands, 117 persons at risk were tested, and of these, 52 had Lynch syndrome mutations and 65 did not.
Routine molecular screening of patients with colorectal adenocarcinoma for the Lynch syndrome identified mutations in patients and their family members that otherwise would not have been detected. These data suggest that the effectiveness of screening with immunohistochemical analysis of the mismatch-repair proteins would be similar to that of the more complex strategy of genotyping for microsatellite instability.
Background and aims:
Guidelines recommend genetic testing of patients with 10 or more cumulative adenomatous polyps. However, little is known about the utility of these tests-especially for older patients. We aimed to determine the prevalence of pathogenic mutations in patients with multiple colorectal polyps, stratified by age.
Methods:
We performed a cross-sectional study of patients with 10 or more colorectal polyps who underwent multigene panel testing (MGPT) from March 2012 through December 2016 (n = 3789). Demographic, clinical and family history data were obtained from test requisition forms and accompanying clinic notes, pedigrees, and pathology reports. Subjects were stratified based on reported polyp histology. Primary outcomes of interest were gene mutations associated with adenomatous polyposis, hamartomatous polyposis, and non-polyposis colorectal cancer syndromes.
Results:
Based on MGPT, the prevalence of mutations in adenomatous polyposis genes decreased with increasing age in all polyp count groups in the adenoma cohort (P < .001 for 10-19, 20-99, and 100 or more polyps). The prevalence of mutations in all genes of interest also decreased with increasing age but remained above 5% in all age and polyp cohorts. Increased age at testing was associated with a significantly lower risk of a mutation in any gene of interest with multivariate analysis. In the hamartoma cohort, the prevalence of mutations in hamartomatous polyposis genes was high regardless of polyp count (40% with 10-19 polyps, 72.1% with 20-99 polyps, and 50% with 100 or more polyps).
Conclusion:
Our findings support continued genetic testing of patients with 10 or more polyps including adenomas and/or hamartomas. MGPT that includes analysis of polyposis and non-polyposis colorectal cancer genes should be considered for these patients given the high proportion with mutations (above 5%) in all age groups.
Purpose
Hereditary factors play an important role in colorectal cancer (CRC) risk, yet the prevalence of germline cancer susceptibility gene mutations in patients with CRC unselected for high-risk features (eg, early age at diagnosis, personal/family history of cancer or polyps, tumor microsatellite instability [MSI], mismatch repair [MMR] deficiency) is unknown.
Patients and Methods
We recruited 1,058 participants who received CRC care in a clinic-based setting without preselection for age at diagnosis, personal/family history, or MSI/MMR results. All participants underwent germline testing for mutations in 25 genes associated with inherited cancer risk. Each gene was categorized as high penetrance or moderate penetrance on the basis of published estimates of the lifetime cancer risks conferred by pathogenic germline mutations in that gene.
Results
One hundred five (9.9%; 95% CI, 8.2% to 11.9%) of 1,058 participants carried one or more pathogenic mutations, including 33 (3.1%) with Lynch syndrome (LS). Twenty-eight (96.6%) of 29 available LS CRCs demonstrated abnormal MSI/MMR results. Seventy-four (7.0%) of 1,058 participants carried non-LS gene mutations, including 23 (2.2%) with mutations in high-penetrance genes (five APC, three biallelic MUTYH, 11 BRCA1/2, two PALB2, one CDKN2A, and one TP53), 15 of whom lacked clinical histories suggestive of their underlying mutation. Thirty-eight (3.6%) participants had moderate-penetrance CRC risk gene mutations (19 monoallelic MUTYH, 17 APC*I1307K, two CHEK2). Neither proband age at CRC diagnosis, family history of CRC, nor personal history of other cancers significantly predicted the presence of pathogenic mutations in non-LS genes.
Conclusion
Germline cancer susceptibility gene mutations are carried by 9.9% of patients with CRC. MSI/MMR testing reliably identifies LS probands, although 7.0% of patients with CRC carry non-LS mutations, including 1.0% with BRCA1/2 mutations.
In a number of families with colorectal adenomatous polyposis or suspected Lynch syndrome / HNPCC, no germline alteration in the APC, MUTYH, or mismatch repair (MMR) genes are found. Missense mutations in the polymerase genes POLE and POLD1 have recently been identified as rare cause of multiple colorectal adenomas and carcinomas, a condition termed Polymerase proofreading-associated polyposis (PPAP). The aim of the present study was to evaluate the clinical relevance and phenotypic spectrum of polymerase germline mutations. Therefore targeted sequencing of the polymerase genes POLD1, POLD2, POLD3, POLD4, POLE, POLE2, POLE3, and POLE4 was performed in 266 unrelated patients with polyposis or fulfilled Amsterdam criteria. The POLE mutation c.1270C>G;p.Leu424Val was detected in four unrelated patients. The mutation was present in 1.5% (4/266) of all patients, 4% (3/77) of all familial cases, and 7% (2/30) of familial polyposis cases. The colorectal phenotype in 14 affected individuals ranged from typical adenomatous polyposis to a HNPCC phenotype, with high intrafamilial variability. Multiple colorectal carcinomas and duodenal adenomas were common, and one case of duodenal carcinoma was reported. Additionally, various extraintestinal lesions were evident. Nine further putative pathogenic variants were identified. The most promising was c.1306C>T;p.Pro436Ser in POLE. In conclusion, a PPAP was identified in a substantial number of polyposis and familial colorectal cancer patients. Screening for polymerase proofreading mutations should therefore be considered, particularly in unexplained familial cases. The present study broadens the phenotypic spectrum of PPAP to duodenal adenomas and carcinomas, and identified novel, potentially pathogenic variants in four polymerase genes. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Background:
Although colonoscopic surveillance of patients after removal of adenomas is widely promoted, little is known about colorectal-cancer mortality among these patients.
Methods:
Using the linkage of the Cancer Registry and the Cause of Death Registry of Norway, we estimated colorectal-cancer mortality among patients who had undergone removal of colorectal adenomas during the period from 1993 through 2007. Patients were followed through 2011. We calculated standardized incidence-based mortality ratios (SMRs) using rates for the Norwegian population at large for comparison. Norwegian guidelines recommended colonoscopy after 10 years for patients with high-risk adenomas (adenomas with high-grade dysplasia, a villous component, or a size ≥10 mm) and after 5 years for patients with three or more adenomas; no surveillance was recommended for patients with low-risk adenomas. Polyp size and exact number were not available in the registry. We defined high-risk adenomas as multiple adenomas and adenomas with a villous component or high-grade dysplasia.
Results:
We identified 40,826 patients who had had colorectal adenomas removed. During a median follow-up of 7.7 years (maximum, 19.0), 1273 patients were given a diagnosis of colorectal cancer. A total of 398 deaths from colorectal cancer were expected and 383 were observed, for an SMR of 0.96 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87 to 1.06) among patients who had had adenomas removed. Colorectal-cancer mortality was increased among patients with high-risk adenomas (expected deaths, 209; observed deaths, 242; SMR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.31), but it was reduced among patients with low-risk adenomas (expected deaths, 189; observed deaths, 141; SMR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.63 to 0.88).
Conclusions:
After a median of 7.7 years of follow-up, colorectal-cancer mortality was lower among patients who had had low-risk adenomas removed and moderately higher among those who had had high-risk adenomas removed, as compared with the general population. (Funded by the Norwegian Cancer Society and others.).
The British Society of Gastroenterology recommends that all familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) and Lynch syndrome (LS) families are screened in the context of a registry. This systematic review was performed to appraise the published evidence for registration and screening in relation to colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality.
Five electronic databases were searched using a combination of medical subject heading terms and free-text keywords. Titles and abstracts were scrutinized by two independent reviewers. Inclusion criteria were English-language studies describing CRC incidence and/or mortality in patients with FAP or LS, with comparison of either: screened and unscreened patients, or time periods before and after establishment of the registry.
Of 4668 abstracts identified, 185 full-text articles were selected; 43 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. No randomized clinical trial evidence was identified. For FAP, 33 of 33 studies described a significant reduction of CRC incidence and mortality with registration and screening. For LS, nine of ten studies described a reduction of CRC incidence and mortality with registration and screening. Five studies (FAP, 2; LS, 3) provided evidence for complete prevention of CRC-related deaths during surveillance. Clinical and statistical heterogeneity prevented pooling of data for meta-analysis.
Studies consistently report that registration and screening result in a reduction of CRC incidence and mortality in patients with FAP and LS (level 2a evidence, grade B recommendation). Funding and managerial support for hereditary CRC registries should be made available. Presented to the Association of Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland 2013 Congress, Glasgow, UK, May 2013, and to the Annual Meeting of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Liverpool, UK, July 2013; published in abstract form as Br J Surg 2013; 100(Suppl 7): 123-124 and as Colorectal Dis 2013; 15(Suppl 1): 4.
Background
Currently, there are no data on adherence to guidelines for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in patients with a family history.
Aim
We conducted a retrospective study to assess if such patients were being appropriately screened according to American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) guidelines.
Methods
Two independent reviewers performed a comprehensive medical record review of family and CRC screening history on 362 adults with a family history of CRC in a first-degree relative who had recently undergone screening colonoscopy. The endpoint was appropriate initiation of screening and endoscopist-recommended subsequent screening intervals, as compared to AGA guideline recommendations.
Results
Of 362 subjects, only 146 (40.3 %) were screened appropriately; 213 (58.9 %) had late initiation of screening (i.e., screening was started ≥5 years later than the age recommended by guidelines) and three (0.8 %) had premature initiation (i.e., screening was started ≥1 year too early). Of cases involving delayed screening initiation, 126 were not under primary care at the time when screening was supposed to have started, while most of the remaining received either no or incorrect screening recommendations from their primary care provider. Of 270 subjects with no neoplasia found on initial screening, 112 (41.5 %) had endoscopist-recommended subsequent screening intervals that were ≥2 years shorter than that recommended by guidelines. Results were similar if American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy or American College of Gastroenterology guidelines were used.
Conclusions
Patients with a family history often suffer from late initiation of screening and overly short endoscopist-recommended subsequent intervals for colonoscopy. Further education of patients and providers on screening recommendations may be helpful.
Patients with multiple colorectal adenomas may carry germline mutations in the APC or MUTYH genes.
To determine the prevalence of pathogenic APC and MUTYH mutations in patients with multiple colorectal adenomas who had undergone genetic testing and to compare the prevalence and clinical characteristics of APC and MUTYH mutation carriers.
Cross-sectional study conducted among 8676 individuals who had undergone full gene sequencing and large rearrangement analysis of the APC gene and targeted sequence analysis for the 2 most common MUTYH mutations (Y179C and G396D) between 2004 and 2011. Individuals with either mutation underwent full MUTYH gene sequencing. APC and MUTYH mutation prevalence was evaluated by polyp burden; the clinical characteristics associated with a pathogenic mutation were evaluated using logistic regression analyses.
Prevalence of pathogenic mutations in APC and MUTYH genes.
Colorectal adenomas were reported in 7225 individuals; 1457 with classic polyposis (≥100 adenomas) and 3253 with attenuated polyposis (20-99 adenomas). The prevalence of pathogenic APC and biallelic MUTYH mutations was 95 of 119 (80% [95% CI, 71%-87%]) and 2 of 119 (2% [95% CI, 0.2%-6%]), respectively, among individuals with 1000 or more adenomas, 756 of 1338 (56% [95% CI, 54%-59%]) and 94 of 1338 (7% [95% CI, 6%-8%]) among those with 100 to 999 adenomas, 326 of 3253 (10% [95% CI, 9%-11%]) and 233 of 3253 (7% [95% CI, 6%-8%]) among those with 20 to 99 adenomas, and 50 of 970 (5% [95% CI, 4%-7%]) and 37 of 970 (4% [95% CI, 3%-5%]) among those with 10 to 19 adenomas. Adenoma count was strongly associated with a pathogenic mutation in multivariable analyses.
Among patients with multiple colorectal adenomas, pathogenic APC and MUTYH mutation prevalence varied considerably by adenoma count, including within those with a classic polyposis phenotype. APC mutations predominated in patients with classic polyposis, whereas prevalence of APC and MUTYH mutations was similar in attenuated polyposis. These findings require external validation.
Observational studies report reduced colorectal cancer in regular aspirin consumers. Randomised controlled trials have shown reduced risk of adenomas but none have employed prevention of colorectal cancer as a primary endpoint. The CAPP2 trial aimed to investigate the antineoplastic effects of aspirin and a resistant starch in carriers of Lynch syndrome, the major form of hereditary colorectal cancer; we now report long-term follow-up of participants randomly assigned to aspirin or placebo.
In the CAPP2 randomised trial, carriers of Lynch syndrome were randomly assigned in a two-by-two factorial design to 600 mg aspirin or aspirin placebo or 30 g resistant starch or starch placebo, for up to 4 years. Randomisation was in blocks of 16 with provision for optional single-agent randomisation and extended postintervention double-blind follow-up; participants and investigators were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was development of colorectal cancer. Analysis was by intention to treat and per protocol. This trial is registered, ISRCTN59521990.
861 participants were randomly assigned to aspirin or aspirin placebo. At a mean follow-up of 55·7 months, 48 participants had developed 53 primary colorectal cancers (18 of 427 randomly assigned to aspirin, 30 of 434 to aspirin placebo). Intention-to-treat analysis of time to first colorectal cancer showed a hazard ratio (HR) of 0·63 (95% CI 0·35-1·13, p=0·12). Poisson regression taking account of multiple primary events gave an incidence rate ratio (IRR) of 0·56 (95% CI 0·32-0·99, p=0·05). For participants completing 2 years of intervention (258 aspirin, 250 aspirin placebo), per-protocol analysis yielded an HR of 0·41 (0·19-0·86, p=0·02) and an IRR of 0·37 (0·18-0·78, p=0·008). No data for adverse events were available postintervention; during the intervention, adverse events did not differ between aspirin and placebo groups.
600 mg aspirin per day for a mean of 25 months substantially reduced cancer incidence after 55·7 months in carriers of hereditary colorectal cancer. Further studies are needed to establish the optimum dose and duration of aspirin treatment.
European Union; Cancer Research UK; Bayer Corporation; National Starch and Chemical Co; UK Medical Research Council; Newcastle Hospitals trustees; Cancer Council of Victoria Australia; THRIPP South Africa; The Finnish Cancer Foundation; SIAK Switzerland; Bayer Pharma.
Colonoscopy is central to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Success of CRC screening is dependent on colonoscopy quality. The NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) offers biennial faecal occult blood (FOB) testing to 60-74 year olds and colonoscopy to those with positive FOB tests. All colonoscopists in the screening programme are required to meet predetermined standards before starting screening and are subject to ongoing quality assurance. In this study, the authors examine the quality of colonoscopy in the NHS BCSP and describe new and established measures to assess and maintain quality.
The NHS BCSP database collects detailed data on all screening colonoscopies. Prospectively collected data from the first 3 years of the programme (August 2006 to August 2009) were analysed. Colonoscopy quality indicators (adenoma detection rate (ADR), polyp detection rate, colonoscopy withdrawal time, caecal intubation rate, rectal retroversion rate, polyp retrieval rate, mean sedation doses, patient comfort scores, bowel preparation quality and adverse event incidence) were calculated along with measures of total adenoma detection.
2,269,983 individuals returned FOB tests leading to 36,460 colonoscopies. Mean unadjusted caecal intubation rate was 95.2%, and mean withdrawal time for normal procedures was 9.2 min. The mean ADR per colonoscopist was 46.5%. The mean number of adenomas per procedure (MAP) was 0.91; the mean number of adenomas per positive procedure (MAP+) was 1.94. Perforation occurred after 0.09% of procedures. There were no procedure-related deaths.
The NHS BCSP provides high-quality colonoscopy, as demonstrated by high caecal intubation rate, ADR and comfort scores, and low adverse event rates. Quality is achieved by ensuring BCSP colonoscopists meet a high standard before starting screening and through ongoing quality assurance. Measuring total adenoma detection (MAP and MAP+) as adjuncts to ADR may further enhance quality assurance.
Between 2% to 5% of all colon cancers arise in the setting of well-defined inherited syndromes, including Lynch syndrome, familial adenomatous polyposis, MUTYH-associated polyposis, and certain hamartomatous polyposis conditions. Each is associated with a high risk of colon cancer. In addition to the syndromes, up to one-third of colon cancers exhibit increased familial risk, likely related to inheritance. A number of less penetrant, but possibly more frequent susceptibility genes have been identified for this level of inheritance. Clarification of predisposing genes allows for accurate risk assessment and more precise screening approaches. This review examines the colon cancer syndromes, their genetics and management, and also the common familial colon cancers with current genetic advances and screening guidelines.