Strategies to identify the Lynch syndrome among patients with colorectal cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis

Is breast cancer a part of Lynch syndrome?

A long-standing question is whether breast cancer is an integral part of Lynch syndrome, also known as hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer. A recent study by Lotsari and colleagues analyzes molecular features of breast cancers from families with Lynch syndrome, including germline mutation carriers and their non-mutation carrier siblings, and controls with sporadic breast cancer. The study finds microsatellite instability and loss of mismatch DNA repair protein expression in one third and two thirds of Lynch syndrome samples, respectively, but in none of the non-mutation carriers or controls. Overall, the age of diagnosis of breast cancer in Lynch syndrome mutation carriers is no different than that in non-carriers, but diagnosis age was lower in those carriers whose breast tumors exhibited defects in mismatch repair. These results have important implications for genetic counseling and genetic testing of families with breast cancer and other tumors associated with Lynch syndrome, such as colorectal and endometrial cancers.

Diagnosing Lynch syndrome: more light at the end of the tunnel

Since the recognition of Lynch syndrome, which confers a high risk of colorectal, uterine, and other cancers, approaches to its diagnosis have included a family history of associated cancers and web-based algorithms. Identification of causative genes now allows a precise diagnosis, thus focusing present efforts on who should have genetic testing. Testing for cancer tissue changes can determine who should have germline genetic testing. Indeed, such tumor testing is now generally recommended for all newly diagnosed colorectal cancer cases. As reported in this issue of the journal by Yurgelun and colleagues (beginning on page 574), large colorectal adenomatous polyps (≥10 mm) from patients with Lynch syndrome exhibit findings similar to those in Lynch syndrome colorectal cancer tissues. This finding indicates that testing larger adenomas in persons at a significant risk for Lynch syndrome can now determine the need for germline genetic testing. Although further study is needed for general application, the present study justifies large polyp testing in high-risk families when cancer tissue is unavailable, albeit negative polyp tissue would not rule out Lynch syndrome, as would negative cancer tissue.

Identifying Lynch syndrome in patients with endometrial carcinoma: shortcomings of morphologic and clinical schemas

It has been suggested that reflex testing for Lynch syndrome (LS) using mismatch repair immunohistochemistry and/or microsatellite instability analysis in newly diagnosed colorectal carcinoma (CRC) patients is an emerging standard of care in the United States. The risk of gynecologic malignancy in women with LS approaches and even exceeds that of CRC. Furthermore, gynecologic malignancies are often the sentinel cancers in these patients. There is significant variation in practice, but some groups have similarly recommended deployment of reflex testing strategies in patients presenting with endometrial cancer (EC). The College of American Pathologists has stated that pathologists should recognize the histologic and clinical features that should prompt at least a recommendation for mismatch repair testing. Morphologic and clinical schemas in EC to identify microsatellite unstable/LS tumors are less refined than the colon-centric schemas (Amsterdam, Bethesda, and MsPath). Studies of LS EC are few and interpretation is limited by recruitment strategies and the myriad of definitions and study designs used. Although serous cell type is used to triage ovarian cancer patients for BRCA screening, cell type correlation in LS is less certain but seems to involve a spectrum of cell types. We review the morphologic and clinical features/schemas in LS EC and highlight limitations of restrictive aged-based screening strategies, uncertainty in current clinical schemas and equivocal results of morphologic studies of LS EC. With uncertainty of histologic and clinical schemas, and following developments in CRC, reflex testing of all/vast majority of newly diagnosed EC for LS should be considered.

Use of mismatch repair immunohistochemistry and microsatellite instability testing: exploring Canadian practices

BACKGROUND

The mismatch repair (MMR) status of tumors is being increasingly recognized as a prognostic, predictive, and possible germline predisposition/Lynch syndrome (LS) biomarker in colorectal cancer and other cancer types, particularly in endometrial cancer. Current methods (clinical history and tumor morphology) to predict MMR deficiency (dMMR) are suboptimal, and implementation of reflex laboratory testing of appropriate tumors has been recommended, a strategy requiring test standardization and clinical coordination.

METHODS

Two web-based questionnaires were administered, a general and a specialist laboratory questionnaire, to establish the availability of such tests, requisite clinical/pathology integration, current mode of test initiation, reporting and recommendation practices, and education and attitudes among pathologists. Technical aspects were reviewed on the basis of specialist laboratory practice.

RESULTS

Of 76 respondents, 21.5% were unaware or were uncertain whether they had access to MMR immunohistochemistry. Although 78.9% of respondents had access to such testing, an integrated approach to the identification of patients with LS is lacking, being limited to just 9 centers. The majority (70%) of testing is clinician initiated, with variable implementation of reflex testing and divergent practices in recommendation to test. Standardized reporting is lacking in many centers. Education on MMR in endometrial cancer is poor compared with that in colorectal cancer (P<0.0001).

INTERPRETATION

This multicenter questionnaire highlights heterogenous practices in dMMR testing and LS identification, both in clinical terms and with regard to technical aspects of testing. An integrated multidisciplinary approach is lacking, and there is a need to educate physicians and resolve ethical issues. A Canadian consensus statement and national guidelines on dMMR testing are urgently needed, requiring input from pathologists, clinicians, and genetic counselors.

Systematic immunohistochemistry screening for Lynch syndrome in early age-of-onset colorectal cancer patients undergoing surgical resection

BACKGROUND

Lynch syndrome (LS), defined by a deleterious (pathogenic) germline mutation in a mismatch repair (MMR) gene, is characterized by early age-of-onset colorectal cancer (CRC). Because clinical criteria for LS, such as the Amsterdam II Criteria, may miss cases, reflex tumor tissue testing of all CRC patients for LS has been proposed. Our study describes the impact of routine immunohistochemistry (IHC) analysis of tumor tissue for loss of MMR protein expression in early age-of-onset CRC patients undergoing resection.

STUDY DESIGN

A prospective institutional program was established to perform IHC analysis on all early age-of-onset (≤50 years) CRC patients undergoing resection. Patients with abnormal IHC analysis were referred to the Clinical Genetics Service for further evaluation. The study cohort excluded patients with other polyposis syndromes and inflammatory bowel disease.

RESULTS

IHC was performed on 198 patients from July 2006 to June 2010. The median age was 42.8 years (range 23.1 to 50.6 years). Abnormal IHC was reported in 38 (19.1%) patients, and 22 (57.8%) with abnormal IHC analysis had germline genetic testing. Seventeen (77.2%) had an alteration detected in an MMR gene: 10 were known to be deleterious mutations and 7 were variants of uncertain significance. Overall, LS was detected in 5.1% of patients. Only 2 of the 10 (20%) with a deleterious mutation actually met the Amsterdam II Criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

Reflex IHC testing for LS on early age-of-onset CRC patients undergoing resection is feasible at the institutional level. This strategy identifies a substantial number of LS patients who would have been missed if genetic testing was based on the Amsterdam II Criteria alone.

Relevance, pathogenesis, and testing algorithm for mismatch repair-defective colorectal carcinomas: a report of the association for molecular pathology

Loss-of-function defects in DNA mismatch repair (MMR), which manifest as high levels of microsatellite instability (MSI), occur in approximately 15% of all colorectal carcinomas (CRCs). This molecular subset of CRC characterizes patients with better stage-specific prognoses who experience no benefit from 5-fluorouracil chemotherapy. Most MMR-deficient (dMMR) CRCs are sporadic, but 15% to 20% are due to inherited predisposition (Lynch syndrome). High penetrance of CRCs in germline MMR gene mutation carriers emphasizes the importance of accurate diagnosis of Lynch syndrome carriers. Family-based (Amsterdam), patient/family-based (Bethesda), morphology-based, microsatellite-based, and IHC-based screening criteria do not individually detect all germline mutation carriers. These limitations support the use of multiple concurrent tests and the screening of all patients with newly diagnosed CRC. This approach is resource intensive but would increase detection of inherited and de novo germline mutations to guide family screening. Although CRC prognosis and prediction of 5-fluorouracil response are similar in both the Lynch and sporadic dMMR subgroups, these subgroups differ significantly with regard to the implications for family members. We recommend that new CRCs should be classified into sporadic MMR-proficient, sporadic dMMR, or Lynch dMMR subgroups. The concurrent use of MSI testing, MMR protein IHC, and BRAF c.1799T>A mutation analysis would detect almost all dMMR CRCs, would classify 94% of all new CRCs into these MMR subgroups, and would guide secondary molecular testing of the remainder.

Colorectal cancer survivors' interest in genetic testing for hereditary cancer: implications for universal tumor screening

AIMS

Benefits of universal tumor screening for Lynch syndrome (LS), the most common form of hereditary colorectal cancer (CRC), will be realized only if patients are interested in genetic counseling and testing. This study explores interest in genetic testing for hereditary CRC among CRC patients who have never received genetic counseling or testing.

METHODS

Using results from a cross-sectional survey of CRC patients (n=91) at varying categories of risk for hereditary CRC, bivariate and multivariable analyses were conducted to compare positive and negative attitudinal beliefs regarding genetic testing, risk perceptions, demographics, and tumor stage of those who were interested in genetic testing (n=61) and those who were not interested or were not sure (n=30).

RESULTS

Although significant at the bivariate level, gender, perceived relative risk of hereditary cancer, employment status, and belief that genetic testing would help in preparing for the future were not significantly related to interest in genetic testing when controlling for all other variables in a logistic regression model. The two factors that remained significant include a single-item question measuring the belief that genetic testing is warranted based on personal/family history and a positive attitudinal scale regarding the utility of genetic testing in medical decision making and cancer prevention.

CONCLUSION

Results have potential implications for policies regarding universal tumor screening for LS.

Genetics for the general internist

The internist's goal is to determine a patient's disease risk and to implement preventative interventions. Genetic evaluation is a powerful risk assessment tool, and new interventions target previously untreatable genetic disorders. The purpose of this review is to educate the general internist about common genetic conditions affecting adult patients, with special emphasis on diagnoses with an effective intervention, including hereditary cancer syndromes and cardiovascular disorders. Basic tenets of genetic counseling, complex genetic disease, and management of adults with genetic diagnoses also are discussed.

The genetic counselor: an important surgical ally in the optimal care of the cancer patient

Genetic counselors and surgeons both have important roles in the care of patients with hereditary cancer predisposition syndromes. Surgeons have the initial responsibility to identify and refer high-risk patients. Genetic counselors' specialized skill sets are then used in the risk assessment and genetic evaluation of such patients and their at-risk family members, and this may be performed in multiple settings. As discussed in this article, these roles and the processes of genetic counseling and genetic testing may be enhanced through multiple surgeon and genetic counselor collaborations. Continued medical management of patients and families with hereditary cancer predisposition syndromes becomes the responsibility of patients and their multiple health care providers. Box 7 provides a list of resources to assist in finding a local genetic counselor. Because there are various opportunities for surgeons and genetic counselors to collaborate, the authors urge surgeons to recognize the importance of, identify, and work in partnership with a local genetic counselor because that relationship sets the stage for optimal care of the cancer patient.

Genetic testing for lynch syndrome, an inherited cancer of the bowel, endometrium, and ovary

Genetic screening for the mismatch repair genes found in patients with Lynch syndrome leads to improvements in health outcomes among carriers and members of their family. Clinicians now have a simple and easily employed means of determining if an individual carries the genetic mutations found with Lynch syndrome. This article reviews the background and incidence of Lynch syndrome and presents screening criteria, including the use of Web-based algorithms to estimate the likelihood of an individual having inherited Lynch mutations. Comprehensive management plans based on individual risk and family history plus appropriate preventive measures are recommended. Primary care providers including obstetrician-gynecologists are encouraged to adopt a proactive, evidence-based approach to address patients and their relatives with Lynch syndrome.

Identification of individuals at risk for Lynch syndrome using targeted evaluations and genetic testing: National Society of Genetic Counselors and the Collaborative Group of the Americas on Inherited Colorectal Cancer joint practice guideline

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.