51
|
Walsh MD, Buchanan DD, Pearson SA, Clendenning M, Jenkins MA, Win AK, Walters RJ, Spring K, Nagler B, Pavluk E, Arnold ST, Goldblatt J, George J, Suthers G, Phillips K, Hopper JL, Jass JR, Baron JA, Ahnen D, Thibodeau S, Lindor N, Parry S, Walker N, Rosty C, Young JP. Immunohistochemical testing of conventional adenomas for loss of expression of mismatch repair proteins in Lynch syndrome mutation carriers: a case series from the Australasian site of the colon cancer family registry. Mod Pathol 2012; 25:722-30. [PMID: 22322191 PMCID: PMC3477239 DOI: 10.1038/modpathol.2011.209] [Citation(s) in RCA: 57] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/25/2023]
Abstract
Debate continues as to the usefulness of assessing adenomas for loss of mismatch repair protein expression to identify individuals with suspected Lynch syndrome. We tested 109 polyps from 69 proven mutation carriers (35 females and 34 males) belonging to 49 Lynch syndrome families. All polyps were tested by immunohistochemistry for four mismatch repair proteins MLH1, MSH2, MSH6 and PMS2. Detailed pathology review was performed by specialist gastrointestinal pathologists. The majority of polyps (86%) were conventional adenomas (n=94), with 65 tubular and 28 tubulovillous adenomas and a single villous adenoma. The remaining 15 lesions (14%) were serrated polyps. Overall, loss of mismatch repair expression was noted for 78/109 (72%) of polyps. Loss of mismatch repair expression was seen in 74 of 94 (79%) conventional adenomas, and 4 of 15 (27%) serrated polyps from mismatch repair gene mutation carriers. In all instances, loss of expression was consistent with the underlying germline mutation. Mismatch repair protein expression was lost in 27 of 29 adenomas with a villous component compared with 47 of 65 adenomas without this feature (93 vs 73%; P=0.028). A strong trend was observed for high-grade dysplasia. Mismatch repair deficiency was observed in 12 of 12 conventional adenomas with high-grade dysplasia compared with 60 of 79 with low-grade dysplasia (100 vs 76%; P=0.065). We were unable to demonstrate a significant association between conventional adenoma size or site and mismatch repair deficiency. All (4/4 or 100%) of the serrated polyps demonstrating mismatch repair deficiency were traditional serrated adenomas from a single family. Diagnostic testing of adenomas in suspected Lynch syndrome families is a useful alternative in cases where cancers are unavailable. The overwhelming majority of conventional adenomas from mutation carriers show loss of mismatch repair protein expression concordant with the underlying germline mutation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michael D Walsh
- Familial Cancer Laboratory, QIMR, Herston QLD 4006, Australia,School of Medicine, University of Queensland, Herston QLD 4006, Australia
| | | | | | | | - Mark A Jenkins
- Centre for MEGA, School of Population Health, University of Melbourne, Carlton, VIC 3053, Australia
| | - Aung Ko Win
- Centre for MEGA, School of Population Health, University of Melbourne, Carlton, VIC 3053, Australia
| | | | - Kevin Spring
- Familial Cancer Laboratory, QIMR, Herston QLD 4006, Australia
| | - Belinda Nagler
- Familial Cancer Laboratory, QIMR, Herston QLD 4006, Australia
| | - Erika Pavluk
- Familial Cancer Laboratory, QIMR, Herston QLD 4006, Australia
| | - Sven T Arnold
- Familial Cancer Laboratory, QIMR, Herston QLD 4006, Australia
| | - Jack Goldblatt
- School of Paediatrics and Child Health, University of Western Australia, Nedlands, WA 6009, Australia,Genetic Services of Western Australia, Subiaco, WA 6008, Australia
| | - Jill George
- Genetic Services of Western Australia, Subiaco, WA 6008, Australia
| | - Graeme Suthers
- Department of Paediatrics, University of Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia,South Australian Clinical Genetics Service, North Adelaide, SA 5009, Australia
| | - Kerry Phillips
- South Australian Clinical Genetics Service, North Adelaide, SA 5009, Australia
| | - John L Hopper
- Centre for MEGA, School of Population Health, University of Melbourne, Carlton, VIC 3053, Australia
| | - Jeremy R Jass
- Department of Cellular Pathology, St Mark’s Hospital, Harrow, HA1 3UJ, UK
| | - John A Baron
- Department of Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
| | - Dennis Ahnen
- Denver Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center and University of Colorado School of Medicine, Denver Colorado 80220 USA
| | - Stephen Thibodeau
- Division of Laboratory Genetics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota USA
| | - Noralane Lindor
- Departments of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology and Medical Genetics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota USA
| | - Susan Parry
- New Zealand Familial Gastrointestinal Cancer Registry, Auckland City Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand
| | | | - Christophe Rosty
- Familial Cancer Laboratory, QIMR, Herston QLD 4006, Australia,School of Medicine, University of Queensland, Herston QLD 4006, Australia,Pathology Queensland, Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital, Herston QLD 4006, Australia
| | - Joanne P Young
- Familial Cancer Laboratory, QIMR, Herston QLD 4006, Australia,School of Medicine, University of Queensland, Herston QLD 4006, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
52
|
Win AK, Macinnis RJ, Hopper JL, Jenkins MA. Risk prediction models for colorectal cancer: a review. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2011; 21:398-410. [PMID: 22169185 DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.epi-11-0771] [Citation(s) in RCA: 74] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/31/2022] Open
Abstract
Risk prediction models are important to identify individuals at high risk of developing the disease who can then be offered individually tailored clinical management, targeted screening and interventions to reduce the burden of disease. They are also useful for research purposes when attempting to identify new risk factors for the disease. In this article, we review the risk prediction models that have been developed for colorectal cancer and appraise their applicability, strengths, and weaknesses. We also discuss the factors to be considered for future development and improvement of models for colorectal cancer risk prediction. We conclude that there is no model that sufficiently covers the known risk factors for colorectal cancer that is suitable for assessment of people from across the full range of risk and that a new comprehensive model is needed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Aung Ko Win
- Centre for Molecular, Environmental, Genetic and Analytic Epidemiology, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|