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.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.
Available from: Wouter Hugo de Vos tot Nederveen Cappel
"An important question is which surveillance program should be recommended for families with clustering of CRC but without evidence of MMR deficiency. Familial CRC may be subdivided into three categories: (1) familial colorectal cancer syndrome type X—these include families that comply with the Amsterdam criteria but without evidence of MMR deficiency , (2) late-onset familial clustering of colorectal cancer—families similar to  but all CRC cases diagnosed above the age of 50 years , and (3) familial CRC ss (sensu strictu)—families with one first-degree relative with CRC \50 years or two first-degree relatives with CRC. A team of investigators from St Mark's hospital evaluated the effectiveness of surveillance (3–5 year interval) for the first two categories of familial CRC in a large series (approx. "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract]ABSTRACT: The Dutch Hereditary Cancer Registry was established in 1985 with the support of the Ministry of Health (VWS). The aims of the registry are: (1) to promote the identification of families with hereditary cancer, (2) to encourage the participation in surveillance programs of individuals at high risk, (3) to ensure the continuity of lifelong surveillance examinations, and (4) to promote research, in particular the improvement of surveillance protocols. During its early days the registry provided assistance with family investigations and the collection of medical data, and recommended surveillance when a family fulfilled specific diagnostic criteria. Since 2000 the registry has focused on family follow-up, and ensuring the quality of surveillance programs and appropriate clinical management. Since its founding, the registry has identified over 10,000 high-risk individuals with a diverse array of hereditary cancer syndromes. All were encouraged to participate in prevention programmes. The registry has published a number of studies that evaluated the outcome of surveillance protocols for colorectal cancer (CRC) in Lynch syndrome, as well as in familial colorectal cancer. In 2006, evaluation of the effect of registration and colonoscopic surveillance on the mortality rate associated with colorectal cancer (CRC) showed that the policy led to a substantial decrease in the mortality rate associated with CRC. Following discovery of MMR gene defects, the first predictive model that could select families for genetic testing was published by the Leiden group. In addition, over the years the registry has produced many cancer risk studies that have helped to develop appropriate surveillance protocols. Hereditary cancer registries in general, and the Lynch syndrome registry in particular, play an important role in improving the clinical management of affected families.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
Full-text · Article · Jun 2014 · British Journal of Cancer
"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.
Full-text · Article · Mar 2014 · Journal of medicine and life