MSI in endometrial carcinoma: absence of MLH1 promoter methylation is associated with increased familial risk for cancers

MSIsensor-ct: microsatellite instability detection using cfDNA sequencing data

MOTIVATION

Microsatellite instability (MSI) is a promising biomarker for cancer prognosis and chemosensitivity. Techniques are rapidly evolving for the detection of MSI from tumor-normal paired or tumor-only sequencing data. However, tumor tissues are often insufficient, unavailable, or otherwise difficult to procure. Increasing clinical evidence indicates the enormous potential of plasma circulating cell-free DNA (cfNDA) technology as a noninvasive MSI detection approach.

RESULTS

We developed MSIsensor-ct, a bioinformatics tool based on a machine learning protocol, dedicated to detecting MSI status using cfDNA sequencing data with a potential stable MSIscore threshold of 20%. Evaluation of MSIsensor-ct on independent testing datasets with various levels of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) and sequencing depth showed 100% accuracy within the limit of detection (LOD) of 0.05% ctDNA content. MSIsensor-ct requires only BAM files as input, rendering it user-friendly and readily integrated into next generation sequencing (NGS) analysis pipelines.

AVAILABILITY

MSIsensor-ct is freely available at https://github.com/niu-lab/MSIsensor-ct.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

Supplementary data are available at Briefings in Bioinformatics online.

Establishment and characterization of novel human primary endometrial cancer cell line (ZJB-ENC1) and its genomic characteristic

The establishment of human malignant tumor cell lines can provide abundant experimental materials for understanding the biological characteristics of tumors, studying the carcinogenesis, molecular genetics and the mechanism of metastasis and evolution. In this study, a novel cell line designated ZJB-ENC1 has been established from poorly differentiated endometrioid adenocarcinoma. Cytological results showed monolayer-cultured cells were polygonal in shape and a piling-up tendency without contact inhabitation. Immunohistochemistry analysis showed that the cells were negative for ER, PR, c-erbB2, E-CAD, CD117, and OCT3/4, but strongly positive for PTEN and P16. Meanwhile, the tumorigenicity of ZJB-ENC1 was confirmed by subcutaneous transplantation of the cells into a xenograft mouse model. In addition, the results of the whole exome sequencing revealed a unique genomic characteristic of ZJB-ENC1 cells, all common and novel SNPs and InDels were identified. In conclusion, this new stable cell line may promote basic and clinical research on endometrial cancer (EC).

Importance of PCR-based Tumor Testing in the Evaluation of Lynch Syndrome-associated Endometrial Cancer

Lynch syndrome (LS) is a hereditary cancer syndrome caused by a germline mutation in a DNA mismatch repair gene, usually MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, or PMS2. The most common cancers associated with LS are colorectal adenocarcinoma and endometrial carcinoma. Identification of women with LS-associated endometrial cancer is important, as these women and their affected siblings and children are at-risk of developing these same cancers. Germline testing of all endometrial cancer patients is not cost effective, and screening using young age of cancer diagnosis and/or presence of family history of syndrome-associated is underutilized and ineffective. Therefore, most groups now advocate for tumor tissue testing to screen for LS, with germline testing targeted to women with abnormal tissue testing results. Immunohistochemistry for MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2 is used in many clinical laboratories for this tumor screening step, as immunohistochemistry is relatively inexpensive and is technically more accessible for smaller clinical labs. PCR-based tissue testing, whereas technically more challenging, does play an important role in the identification of these patients. MLH1 methylation analysis identifies women with tumor MLH1 loss who likely have sporadic endometrial cancer and do not need heightened cancer prevention surveillance. High levels of microsatellite instability have been identified in tumors with retained positive expression of mismatch repair proteins. Somatic sequencing of mismatch repair genes from tumor DNA, whereas not currently available in most clinical laboratories, is helpful in resolution of cases in which germline sequencing fails to identify a mutation in a mismatch repair gene. The tumor tissue testing approach can help to identify most women at-risk for germline mutations in a LS gene, but not all patients will be captured using this approach. Clinical suspicion can still play a pivotal role in accurately identifying a subset of these patients.

Clinicopathologic Significance of Mismatch Repair Defects in Endometrial Cancer: An NRG Oncology/Gynecologic Oncology Group Study

PURPOSE

The clinicopathologic significance of mismatch repair (MMR) defects in endometrioid endometrial cancer (EEC) has not been definitively established. We undertook tumor typing to classify MMR defects to determine if MMR status is prognostic or predictive.

METHODS

Primary EECs from NRG/GOG0210 patients were assessed for microsatellite instability (MSI), MLH1 methylation, and MMR protein expression. Each tumor was assigned to one of four MMR classes: normal, epigenetic defect, probable mutation (MMR defect not attributable to MLH1 methylation), or MSI-low. The relationships between MMR classes and clinicopathologic variables were assessed using contingency table tests and Cox proportional hazard models.

RESULTS

A total of 1,024 tumors were assigned to MMR classes. Epigenetic and probable mutations in MMR were significantly associated with higher grade and more frequent lymphovascular space invasion. Epigenetic defects were more common in patients with higher International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage. Overall, there were no differences in outcomes. Progression-free survival was, however, worse for women whose tumors had epigenetic MMR defects compared with the MMR normal group (hazard ratio, 1.37; P < .05; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.86). An exploratory analysis of interaction between MMR status and adjuvant therapy showed a trend toward improved progression-free survival for probable MMR mutation cases.

CONCLUSION

MMR defects in EECs are associated with a number of well-established poor prognostic indicators. Women with tumors that had MMR defects were likely to have higher-grade cancers and more frequent lymphovascular space invasion. Surprisingly, outcomes in these patients were similar to patients with MMR normal tumors, suggesting that MMR defects may counteract the effects of negative prognostic factors. Altered immune surveillance of MMR-deficient tumors, and other host/tumor interactions, is likely to determine outcomes for patients with MMR-deficient tumors.

Utility of MLH1 methylation analysis in the clinical evaluation of Lynch Syndrome in women with endometrial cancer

Clinical screening criteria, such as young age of endometrial cancer diagnosis and family history of signature cancers, have traditionally been used to identify women with Lynch Syndrome, which is caused by mutation of a DNA mismatch repair gene. Immunohistochemistry and microsatellite instability analysis have evolved as important screening tools to evaluate endometrial cancer patients for Lynch Syndrome. A complicating factor is that 15-20% of sporadic endometrial cancers have immunohistochemical loss of the DNA mismatch repair protein MLH1 and high levels of microsatellite instability due to methylation of MLH1. The PCR-based MLH1 methylation assay potentially resolves this issue, yet many clinical laboratories do not perform this assay. The objective of this study was to determine if clinical and pathologic features help to distinguish sporadic endometrial carcinomas with MLH1 loss secondary to MLH1 methylation from Lynch Syndrome-associated endometrial carcinomas with MLH1 loss and absence of MLH1 methylation. Of 337 endometrial carcinomas examined, 54 had immunohistochemical loss of MLH1. 40/54 had MLH1 methylation and were designated as sporadic, while 14/54 lacked MLH1 methylation and were designated as Lynch Syndrome. Diabetes and deep myometrial invasion were associated with Lynch Syndrome; no other clinical or pathological variable distinguished the 2 groups. Combining Society of Gynecologic Oncology screening criteria with these 2 features accurately captured all Lynch Syndrome cases, but with low specificity. In summary, no single clinical/pathologic feature or screening criteria tool accurately identified all Lynch Syndrome-associated endometrial carcinomas, highlighting the importance of the MLH1 methylation assay in the clinical evaluation of these patients.

Endometrial Carcinoma in Women Aged 40 Years and Younger

Context.—Endometrial carcinoma is a disease of older postmenopausal women, and is relatively uncommon in patients younger than 40 years. Endometrial carcinomas in this age group may be familial, associated with Lynch syndrome, or sporadic.

Objectives.—To present our current knowledge of endometrial carcinomas in women younger than 40 years.

Data Sources.—The review is based on previously published articles on this topic.

Conclusions.—Most endometrial carcinomas that occur in this age group are associated with estrogen excess. They are usually low-grade endometrioid carcinomas that present at low stages and are associated with favorable clinical outcomes. Tumors associated with mismatch repair abnormalities and Lynch syndrome appear to be distinct, with worse prognostic factors and, possibly, clinical behavior. Conservative hormonal therapy and ovarian conservation are reasonable considerations in the management of these young patients, but carry the risk of tumor progression, recurrence, and an occult synchronous or metachronous ovarian carcinoma.

Anthropometric measures and the risk of endometrial cancer, overall and by tumor microsatellite status and histological subtype

Obesity is an established risk factor for endometrial cancer, but this association is not well understood for subtypes of endometrial cancer. We evaluated the association of recent and adult-life obesity with subtypes of endometrial cancer based on microsatellite status (microsatellite-stable (MSS) vs. microsatellite-instable (MSI)) and histology (type I vs. type II). Analyses were based on a population-based case-control study (524 cases and 1,032 controls) conducted in Alberta, Canada (2002-2006) and included the following groupings of subtypes: MSS = 337 and MSI = 130; type I = 458 and type II = 66. Logistic and polytomous logistic regression were used to estimate odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for overall endometrial cancer and subtypes of endometrial cancer, respectively. The risks of all subtypes of endometrial cancer, except type II, increased with an increase in all of the anthropometric characteristics examined. The risks for MSI tumors were suggestively stronger than those for MSS tumors; the risk with high (≥30) body mass index (weight (kg)/height (m)(2)) was significantly stronger for MSI tumors (odds ratio = 4.96, 95% confidence interval: 2.76, 8.91) than for MSS tumors (odds ratio = 2.33, 95% confidence interval: 1.66, 3.28) (P-heterogeneity = 0.02). Obesity is associated with most subtypes of endometrial cancer, and further studies are warranted to elucidate the biological mechanisms underlying the stronger risk for the MSI subtype with a high body mass index.

Familial Tumors of the Uterine Corpus

Women with Lynch syndrome are at considerable risk for developing endometrial carcinoma, but current screening guidelines for detection of Lynch syndrome focus almost exclusively on colorectal carcinoma. Lynch syndrome associated colorectal and endometrial carcinomas have some important differences with implications for screening strategies. These differences are discussed in this review, along with the most effective screening criteria and testing methods for detection of Lynch syndrome in endometrial carcinoma patients.

Genetic counseling considerations in the evaluation of families for Lynch syndrome--a review

Lynch syndrome is the most common hereditary colorectal cancer syndrome and the most common cause of hereditary endometrial cancer. Identifying and evaluating families for Lynch syndrome is increasing in complexity due to the recognition that: family history-based clinical criteria lack sensitivity and specificity; genetic testing for Lynch syndrome continues to evolve as understanding of the molecular mechanisms underlying it evolves; and the Lynch syndrome phenotype encompasses multiple organ systems and demonstrates overlap with other hereditary cancer syndromes. This document is a summary of considerations when evaluating individuals and families for Lynch syndrome, including information on cancer risks, diagnostic criteria, tumor and genetic testing strategies, and the management of individuals with this condition.

DNA mismatch repair deficiency in endometrial carcinoma

Microsatellite instability (MSI) is the hallmark of a molecular pathway to carcinogenesis due to sporadic or inherited abnormalities of DNA mismatch repair genes. Inherited mutations are seen in hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer syndrome. Endometrial carcinoma shows as high an incidence of MSI as does colorectal carcinoma. This review provides a framework for the gynecologic pathologist to understand the complexities of MSI in endometrial carcinoma, by discussing the basic mechanisms of mismatch repair and carcinogenesis, testing, the morphologic features of MSI endometrial cancer and the contradictory data regarding prognosis.

Intra-tumor heterogeneity of MLH1 promoter methylation revealed by deep single molecule bisulfite sequencing

A single tumor may contain cells with different somatic mutations. By characterizing this genetic heterogeneity within tumors, advances have been made in the prognosis, treatment and understanding of tumorigenesis. In contrast, the extent of epigenetic intra-tumor heterogeneity and how it influences tumor biology is under-explored. We have characterized epigenetic heterogeneity within individual tumors using next-generation sequencing. We used deep single molecule bisulfite sequencing and sample-specific DNA barcodes to determine the spectrum of MLH1 promoter methylation across an average of 1000 molecules in each of 33 individual samples in parallel, including endometrial cancer, matched blood and normal endometrium. This first glimpse, deep into each tumor, revealed unexpectedly heterogeneous patterns of methylation at the MLH1 promoter within a subset of endometrial tumors. This high-resolution analysis allowed us to measure the clonality of methylation in individual tumors and gain insight into the accumulation of aberrant promoter methylation on both alleles during tumorigenesis.

Managing hereditary gastrointestinal cancer syndromes: the partnership between genetic counselors and gastroenterologists

A standard of care for the recognition and management of patients and families with hereditary gastrointestinal cancer syndromes is emerging, and both gastroenterologists and genetic counselors have an important role. This Review considers these roles and outlines the partnership needed between gastroenterologists and genetic counselors. The role of the gastroenterologist involves careful sampling of polyps and tumors, and requires a basic working knowledge of the features of hereditary gastrointestinal cancer syndromes. The role of the genetic counselor is to gather and synthesize family history and pathology information, formulate a genetic differential diagnosis, determine a genetic testing strategy, guide medical management and help patients communicate information to their relatives. Managing the complex logistics of testing the best candidate in the family, facilitating informed consent, outlining costs to patients and interpreting test results are also responsibilities assumed by genetic counselors. In addition, genetic counselors help physicians meet their ethical and medicolegal obligations with respect to patient management and family communication. Referral schemata for patients with polyposis and nonpolyposis features are presented in this Review, along with comprehensive tables that outline the features of well-known and rare syndromes that heighten the risk of gastrointestinal malignancy.

Clustering of Lynch syndrome malignancies with no evidence for a role of DNA mismatch repair

OBJECTIVES

We ascertained a large kindred with an excess of Lynch syndrome-associated cancers. Our objective was to determine if a defect in one of the DNA mismatch repair (DMMR) genes was the probable cause of cancer susceptibility as microsatellite instability (MSI) and immunohistochemical (IHC) analysis of the probands' tumors did not provide a clear indication.

METHODS

A detailed history and review of medical records was undertaken to construct a four-generation pedigree. Blood samples were obtained for analysis of germline DNA. Polymorphic repeats from the MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2 loci were genotyped and the co-segregation of markers and disease was assessed. DMMR gene expression for all available tumors was evaluated by IHC. Combined bisulfite restriction analysis (COBRA) of MLH1 was utilized to test for germline epimutation.

RESULTS

Four gynecologic carcinomas, 3 colon carcinomas, and 13 cases of adenomatous polyps were identified. The family met Amsterdam II criteria. The mean age of cancer diagnosis in the kindred was 63 years (range 44-82 years). DNA marker analyses excluded linkage to MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2. Furthermore, MSI and IHC analysis of tumors did not suggest a role for DMMR. Methylation of the MLH1 promoter was identified in the peripheral blood leukocytes (PBLs) of a family member with an early onset colon cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified a large family with multiple Lynch malignancies and no evidence for an inherited defect in DMMR. This family represents an important but poorly understood form of autosomal dominant inherited cancer susceptibility. Aberrant MLH1 promoter methylation in normal tissues may be a marker for cancer susceptibility in families such as this.

Microsatellite Instability and Epigenetic Inactivation of MLH1 and Outcome of Patients With Endometrial Carcinomas of the Endometrioid Type

Purpose

Most studies of microsatellite instability (MSI) and outcomes in endometrial cancer patients have included varied histologic subtypes. Nonetheless, MSI occurs almost exclusively in endometrioid tumors. The impact of MSI on outcomes in patients with endometrial cancer is controversial. We sought to determine whether MSI and MLH1 methylation are associated with clinicopathologic variables and survival outcomes in a large series of patients with endometrial carcinomas of the endometrioid type.

Patients and Methods

Tumor samples, blood, and clinicopathologic data were prospectively collected and analyzed for 446 patients with endometrioid carcinomas. MSI was determined using five National Cancer Institute (NCI) consensus panel markers, and the methylation status of the MLH1 promoter was determined by combined bisulfite restriction analysis (COBRA). Associations with clinicopathologic variables and survival outcomes were evaluated.

Results

MSI was identified in 147 cases (33%). MSI was associated with higher International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) grade (P < .0001). MSI+ tumors without MLH1 methylation were associated with younger age (P < .001). MSI was not associated with overall survival (OS; hazard ratio [HR], 1.011; 95% CI, 0.688 to 1.484; P = .96) or disease-free survival (DFS; HR 0.951; 95% CI, 0.554 to 1.635; P = .86). The combined MSI/MLH1 methylation status (treating MSI− as the reference) did not predict OS (MSI+/MLH1-U: HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.27 to 1.44; P = .26; MSI+/MLH1-M: HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.62 to 1.46; P = .82) or DFS (MSI+/MLH1-U: HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.22 to 1.19; P = .12; MSI+/MLH1-M: HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.62 to 1.40; P = .72).

Conclusion

MSI is not associated with survival in patients with endometrioid endometrial cancer.

Excess of early onset multiple myeloma in endometrial cancer probands and their relatives suggests common susceptibility

OBJECTIVE

Determine whether there is an association between uterine cancer and multiple myeloma.

METHODS

Data on second malignancies were obtained for 368 uterine corpus cancer patients treated between 1992 and 2005. Detailed family histories were devised for 192 probands. Diagnoses of multiple myelomas, lymphomas and leukemias in family members were medical record verified. The frequency of multiple myeloma among uterine cancer patients was compared to the female age-adjusted incidence rate of multiple myeloma obtained from the SEER database. The crude rate of multiple myeloma (as well as Hodgkin's, non-Hodgkin's lymphomas and leukemias) among first-degree relatives of patients with uterine cancer was compared to the age-adjusted incidence rate of multiple myeloma in the general population. Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate disease and cohort characteristics. A P value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Two of 368 uterine cancer patients were also diagnosed with multiple myeloma, both at age 50. The observed incidence of multiple myeloma in this cohort (543 per 100,000; 95% CI: 66-1962 per 100,000) represents a 120-fold increase based on predicted incidence (P=0.00014). The frequency of multiple myeloma in first-degree relatives was 2/1351 (148 per 100,000; 95% CI: 14.8-533 per 100,000) which represents a 27-fold increase compared to the general population (P=0.0026). The frequencies of leukemias and lymphomas in these family members on the other hand were not significantly increased (P=0.152 and P=0.218).

CONCLUSION

This specific excess frequency of early onset multiple myeloma in endometrial cancer probands and their relatives suggests shared susceptibility.

Evidence for heritable predisposition to epigenetic silencing of MLH1

Epigenetic silencing of MLH1 is the most common cause of defective DNA mismatch repair in endometrial and colorectal cancers. We hypothesized that variation in the MLH1 gene might contribute to the risk for MLH1 methylation and epigenetic silencing. We undertook a case-control study to test for the association between MLH1 variants and abnormal MLH1 methylation. Eight MLH1 SNPs were typed in the normal DNA from women with endometrial carcinoma. For these studies, the cases were women whose cancers exhibited MLH1 methylation (N = 98) and the controls were women whose cancers had no MLH1 methylation (N = 219). One MLH1 SNP, rs1800734, located in the MLH1 CpG island at -93 from the translation start site, was significantly associated with MLH1 methylation as were age at diagnosis and patient body mass index. In validation experiments, a similar-sized cohort of colorectal carcinoma patients (N = 387) showed a similar degree of association with the -93 SNP; a smaller cohort of endometrial carcinomas (N = 181) showed no association. Combining all 3 cohorts showed an odds ratio of 1.61 (95% CI: 1.20-2.16) for the AA or AG vs. GG genotype at the -93 SNP. Identification of risk alleles for MLH1 methylation could shed light on mechanisms of epigenetic silencing and may ultimately lead to new approaches to the prevention or treatment of malignancies associated with MLH1 inactivation.

Body mass index: Relationship to clinical, pathologic and features of microsatellite instability in endometrial cancer

OBJECTIVES

There is a well known association between obesity and endometrial cancer. We sought to examine the relationships between body mass index (BMI), as a measure of obesity, and known demographic, clinical, and molecular characteristics of microsatellite instability and MLH1 promoter methylation in a cohort of patients with endometrial cancer.

METHODS

Corpus cancer specimens were prospectively obtained from 473 consecutively enrolled patients between 1992 and 2004. Clinical and pathologic data were extracted from review of the medical record. Microsatellite instability (MSI) was evaluated in all tumors, and methylation of the MLH1 promoter was determined for MSI positive tumors.

RESULTS

The median (SD) age and BMI were 64.8 years (11.9) and 33.5 (9.4), respectively. Histology included 376 endometrioid (79%), 69 serous/clear cell or mixed (15%), and 28 sarcomas (6%). Median BMI was 32.4 for endometrioid, 31.0 for serous/clear cell or mixed, and 27.8 for sarcomas (p=0.14). BMI was negatively associated with age at surgery (p<0.01). The remainder of analyses excluded sarcoma histology. BMI was associated with stage of disease; patients with stage I/II disease had significantly higher BMI than those with stage III/IV disease (32.6 vs. 30.6; p=0.02). In relation to molecular features of endometrial cancer, BMI was significantly different between MSI positive tumors compared to MSI negative tumors (30.3 vs. 32.7; p=0.02). MSI was also significantly different between tumor histology, occurring with a higher frequency in Type I than Type II tumors (p<0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of endometrial cancer patients are obese. Those with higher BMI are more likely to be younger, present with early stage disease, and have MSI negative tumors.

Increased risk for abnormalities on perioperative colon screening in patients with microsatellite instability–positive endometrial carcinoma

Microsatellite instability (MSI) is a feature of certain hereditary and sporadic endometrial and colon cancers. We set out to determine whether molecular stratification of endometrial cancers based on tumor MSI status could help identify patients at increased risk for abnormalities found on perioperative colon screening. From a prospectively accrued series of 413 patients, medical records were reviewed from 94 patients with MSI positive (MSI+) and 94 patients with MSI negative (MSI−) endometrial cancers, matched by year of diagnosis. We reviewed clinicopathologic data and results of perioperative colon screening. Differences were analyzed using Fisher exact test and logistic regression analysis. There were no significant clinicopathologic differences between the two cohorts. Sixty-five percent of patients in each group underwent perioperative colon screening. However, patients with MSI+ cancers had a twofold increase in the frequency of colonic abnormalities (30% versus 14.8%, P= 0.044) over those with MSI− cancers. Furthermore, the only primary colon cancers (N= 2) were found in women with MSI+ endometrial cancers that were unmethylated at the MLH1 promoter. Our data suggest that patients with MSI+ endometrial cancers are at increased risk for abnormalities on perioperative colon screening. Those with MSI+MLH1 unmethylated cancers appear to be at highest risk.

DNA Repair Pathway Profiling and Microsatellite Instability in Colorectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

The ability to maintain DNA integrity is a critical cellular function. DNA repair is conducted by distinct pathways of genes, many of which are thought to be altered in colorectal cancer. However, there has been little characterization of these pathways in colorectal cancer.

METHOD

By using the TaqMan real-time quantitative PCR, RNA expression profiling of 20 DNA repair pathway genes was done in matched tumor and normal tissues from 52 patients with Dukes' C colorectal cancer.

RESULTS

The relative mRNA expression level across the 20 DNA repair pathway genes varied considerably, and the individual variability was also quite large, with an 85.4 median fold change in the tumor tissue genes and a 127.2 median fold change in the normal tissue genes. Tumor-normal differential expression was found in 13 of 20 DNA repair pathway genes (only XPA had a lower RNA level in the tumor samples; the other 12 genes had significantly higher tumor levels, all P<0.01). Coordinated expression of ERCC6, HMG1, MSH2, and POLB (RS>or=0.60) was observed in the tumor tissues (all P<0.001). Apoptosis index was not correlated with expression of the 20 DNA repair pathway genes. MLH1 and XRCC1 RNA expression was correlated with microsatellite instability status (P=0.045 and 0.020, respectively). An inverse correlation was found between tumor MLH1 RNA expression and MLH1 DNA methylation (P=0.003).

CONCLUSION

Our study provides an initial characterization of the DNA repair pathways for understanding the cellular DNA damage/repair system in human colorectal cancer.

MLH3 Mutation in Endometrial Cancer

MLH3 is a recently described member of the DNA mismatch repair gene family. Based on its interaction with the MutL homologue MLH1, it was postulated that MLH3 might play a role in tumorigenesis. Germ line and somatic mutations in MLH3 have been identified in a small fraction of colorectal cancers, but the role of MLH3 in colorectal cancer tumorigenesis remains controversial. We investigated MLH3's role in endometrial tumorigenesis through analysis of tumor and germ line DNA from 57 endometrial cancer patients who were at increased risk for having inherited cancer susceptibility. Patients with known MSH2 or MSH6 mutations were excluded as well as those who had MLH1-methylated tumors. Sixteen different variants were identified by single-strand conformational variant analysis. Of the 12 missense changes identified, three were somatic mutations. One patient had a germ line missense variant and loss of heterozygosity (LOH) in her tumor specimen. There was no evidence of MLH3 promoter methylation based on combined bisulfite restriction analysis. The identification of inherited missense variants, somatic missense mutations (present in 3 of 57 tumors), and LOH in the tumor from a patient with a germ line missense change suggest a role for MLH3 in endometrial tumorigenesis.

Variable MLH1 promoter methylation patterns in endometrial carcinomas of endometrioid subtype lacking DNA mismatch repair

A lack of DNA mismatch repair (MMR) is observed in approximately 20% of sporadic endometrial tumors, but few of these tumors have mutations in MSH2 or MLH1, the two major MMR genes. Promoter methylation is an important means of silencing transcription, and methylation of the MLH1 promoter has been reported as an important cause of MLH1 inactivation in endometrial cancers. Studies have shown that specific CpG sites within the MLH1 gene promoter are critical for gene expression, but other studies have shown that methylation of both more proximal and more distal sequences are important for MLH1 gene regulation. Here, we used a microsatellite instability assay and MLH1 immunohistochemistry to identify a subset of endometrial carcinomas of the endometrioid subtype lacking MMR. Sequencing of bisulphite-treated DNA from these tumors determined the methylation status of 42 CpG sites across the MLH1 promoter (spanning -204 to -702 bp upstream of the transcriptional start). Unlike the 4 normal endometrial samples that were unmethylated, 17 of 21 MMR-deficient samples showed complete or near-complete methylation and the remaining 4 MMR-deficient samples had a considerable degree of methylation (approximately 50% or greater). Five tumors demonstrated isolated unmethylated CpG sites, despite methylation throughout the rest of the promoter. This underscores the importance of examining the methylation status of at least several CpG sites within the promoter as methylation is not always consistent across DNA. Overall, our findings support the model that density of methylation of CpG sites across the MLH1 promoter is important in determining gene expression.

Defective mismatch repair and the development of recurrent endometrial carcinoma

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether defective DNA mismatch repair (MMR) defines a subgroup at risk for recurrence in sporadic endometrial carcinoma patients.

METHODS

Primary tumors from 44 patients with recurrent stage I endometrial carcinoma were compared after matching, with tumors of 44 patients being free of recurrence for minimal 3 years. Paraffin-embedded primary tumors (n = 88) and recurrent tumors (n = 32) were subjected to immunohistochemical analysis for hMSH2 and hMLH1 expression. Subsequently, a staining index (SI = 0-9) was calculated based on staining intensity and quantity. DNA was extracted from paraffin-embedded tissues, and promoter methylation of hMLH1 was determined by nested methylation-specific PCR (MSP). Microsatellite instability (MSI) was assessed by BAT-26 or BAT-25.

RESULTS

Low hMSH2 expression was observed in 2% of primary tumors of control patients without recurrence, 14% of primary tumors of patients with recurrence, and 0% of recurrent tumors. Low hMLH1 expression was observed in 32%, 19%, and 22%, respectively. hMLH1 gene promoter methylation was detected in 50%, 47%, and 32%, and MSI was found in 16%, 14%, and 30%, respectively. No significant differences were found between primary tumors of patients with and without recurrence with respect to hMSH2 and hMLH1 expression, hMLH1 promoter methylation, and MSI. When primary and recurrent tumors were compared, there was an increased correlation of hMLH1 methylation with low hMLH1 expression and MSI in recurrent tumors.

CONCLUSION

MSI, hMLH1 promoter methylation, and the expression of hMLH1 and hMSH2 are not predictive for the development of recurrent stage I endometrial carcinoma. In the progression of tumor, "de novo" hMLH1 methylation rarely occurs, instead there is further derailment of the MMR pathway in affected tumors.

Penetrance and expressivity of MSH6 germline mutations in seven kindreds not ascertained by family history

Hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) is caused by inherited mutations in DNA mismatch-repair genes, most commonly MLH1 or MSH2. The role MSH6 plays in inherited cancer susceptibility is less well defined. The aim of this study was to investigate the penetrance and expressivity of MSH6 mutations in kindreds ascertained through endometrial cancer probands unselected for family history. Detailed pedigrees were constructed for six MSH6 mutation carriers. All reported cancers and precancers were confirmed, and tissues were obtained when available. Tumors were analyzed for microsatellite instability (MSI) and for expression of MSH2, MLH1, and MSH6. MSH6 mutation status was determined for 59 family members. Of these 59 individuals, 19 (32%) had confirmed cancers and precancers. There was an excess of mutation carriers among the 19 affected family members (11 [58%] of 19) compared with those among the 40 unaffecteds (8 [20%] of 40, P=.0065, odds ratio = 5.5, 95% CI = 1.66-18.19). In four of the seven tumors analyzed from mutation carriers other than the probands, MSI and/or MMR protein expression was consistent with the involvement of MSH6. Overall estimated penetrance of the MHS6 mutations was 57.7%. Of the tumors in mutation carriers, 78% were part of the extended HNPCC spectrum. This study demonstrates that MSH6 germline mutations are, indeed, associated with increased cancer risk and that the penetrance of mutations may be higher than appreciated elsewhere. A combination of MSI and immunohistochemistry analyses may be helpful in screening for MSH6 mutation carriers.

Familial risk of endometrial cancer after exclusion of families that fulfilled Amsterdam, Japanese or Bethesda criteria for HNPCC

BACKGROUND

Endometrial cancer is the second most common lesion within hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) syndrome. The importance of the non-HNPCC genetic predisposition to endometrial cancer is unclear, and the familial aggregation of endometrial cancer after exclusion of HNPCC families may offer valuable clues about the involvement of non-HNPCC-related genes.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The families of the nationwide Swedish Family-Cancer Database were classified as HNPCC families according to the Amsterdam I or II, the modified Amsterdam, the Japanese and the Bethesda criteria. Standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) for endometrial cancer when parents or siblings were diagnosed with cancer at the most common sites were calculated before and after exclusion of HNPCC families.

RESULTS

The proportion of individuals in the families with endometrial cancer was highest when the criteria required three cancers within a family or multiple HNPCC-related cancers in the same individual. Consideration of the Amsterdam or the Japanese criteria hardly reduced the familial aggregation of endometrial cancer. After exclusion of families that fulfilled the Bethesda criteria, SIRs were significant when the parents were diagnosed with endometrial or thyroid gland cancers; 75.7% (95% confidence interval 60% to 99.1%) of the familial cases of endometrial cancer were not related to HNPCC according to the Bethesda criteria. The reduction of SIRs for cancers at the colon, pancreas, prostate and ovary was limited when the Bethesda criteria were applied. However, the Bethesda criteria identified most of the familial aggregation when endometrial cancers were diagnosed before the age of 55 years.

CONCLUSIONS

The data suggest that additional effects, not related to HNPCC, contribute to the familial aggregation of endometrial cancer.

RAS/RAF mutation and defective DNA mismatch repair in endometrial cancers

OBJECTIVE

Defective DNA mismatch repair is a common genetic abnormality in both colon cancers and endometrial cancers. Cancers with defective DNA mismatch repair have the so-called mutator phenotype and accumulate genetic errors at an increased rate. An early mutational target in cells with defect DNA mismatch repair may be the RAS/RAF pathway. Colon cancers often have KRAS2 mutations and, if not KRAS2 mutations, may have BRAF mutations. This study investigated the spectrum and frequency of mutations in BRAF and KRAS2 in endometrial carcinomas on the basis of mismatch repair status.

STUDY DESIGN

Four hundred forty-one patients with endometrial cancer were staged properly and graded and evaluated for mismatch repair status. These patients were then stratified to groups by the degree of microsatellite instability that was observed in their tumors. One hundred forty-six of the selected tumors were then evaluated for KRAS2 and BRAF mutations on the basis of their microsatellite instability.

RESULTS

One hundred forty-six endometrioid endometrial cancers were evaluated for KRAS2 and BRAF mutations. Thirty-five cancers (24%) had activating KRAS2 mutations, but only a single BRAF mutation was identified in an microsatellite instability-positive cancer. Twenty-four of 81 microsatellite instability high cancers (29.6%) in which the MLH1 repair gene was methylated had KRAS2 mutations. When compared with the other groups, this finding approached statistical significance (P=.06). KRAS2 mutation status was associated with increasing age at diagnosis (P=.02).

CONCLUSION

Despite many similarities between colon and endometrial cancers, the mechanism of the development of endometrial cancers appears to be different from colon cancers in that BRAF is not affected by a mismatch repair problem, because only KRAS2 mutations were seen. In addition, increasing age appears to lead to an increased likelihood that such a mutation will occur.

Increased Risk for Hereditary Nonpolyposis Colorectal Cancer-Associated Synchronous and Metachronous Malignancies in Patients with Microsatellite Instability-Positive Endometrial Carcinoma Lacking MLH1 Promoter Methylation

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate number and types of synchronous and metachronous malignancies in patients with endometrial carcinoma with and without microsatellite instability (MSI).

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

From a series of 413 endometrial cancer patients, we identified 94 patients with MSI-positive (MSI+) cancers and grouped them by tumor MLH1 promoter methylation status. These 94 patients were matched by year of surgery to 94 patients with MSI-negative (MSI-) endometrial cancers from the same series. Medical records were reviewed for clinicopathologic information including rates and types of synchronous and metachronous malignancies. Hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC)-associated second and third cancers were analyzed for MSI and MSH2, MSH6, and MLH1 expression for comparison with the corresponding endometrial cancers.

RESULTS

The MSI+ and MSI- cohorts were similar with regard to age, race, grade, and histology. Twenty-eight MSI+ endometrial cancers (29.8%) were MLH1 unmethylated. Rates of synchronous and metachronous cancers were also similar in the MSI+ and MSI- groups at 20 and 23%, respectively. However, patients with MSI+ MLH1 unmethylated endometrial cancers had an excess of HNPCC-associated second and third cancers compared with those with MSI+ MLH1 methylated and MSI- endometrial cancers (18% versus 4.5%, P = 0.034, and 2.1%, P = 0.002). Six of seven second tumors from 5 patients with MSI+ MLH1 unmethylated endometrial cancers showed concordant MSI and mismatch repair protein expression status.

CONCLUSIONS

Our observation that patients with MSI-positive MLH1 unmethylated endometrial carcinoma are at increased risk for HNPCC-associated synchronous and metachronous malignancies suggests inherited cancer susceptibility. These patients and their families may warrant more intense cancer surveillance.

Prevalence of defective DNA mismatch repair and MSH6 mutation in an unselected series of endometrial cancers

Endometrial cancer is the most common gynecologic malignancy in the United States and the most frequent extracolonic tumor in hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC). HNPCC patients have inherited defects in DNA mismatch repair and the microsatellite instability (MSI) tumor phenotype. Sporadic endometrial cancers also exhibit MSI, usually associated with methylation of the MLH1 promoter. Germ-line MSH6 mutations, which are rare in HNPCC, have been reported in several families with multiple members affected with endometrial carcinoma. We reasoned that MSH6 mutation might account for loss of mismatch repair in MSI-positive endometrial cancers in which the cause of MSI is unknown. We therefore investigated MSI and MLH1 promoter methylation in 441 endometrial cancer patients unselected for age or personal and family history of cancers. MSI and MLH1 promoter methylation status were associated with age of onset and tumor histology. One hundred cases (23% of the entire series) were evaluated for MSH6 defects. Inactivating germ-line MSH6 mutations were identified in seven women with MSI-positive, MLH1 promoter unmethylated cancers. Most of the MSI in these cases was seen with mononucleotide repeat markers. The MSH6 mutation carriers were significantly younger than the rest of the population (mean age 54.8 versus 64.6, P = 0.04). Somatic mutations were seen in 17 tumors, all of which had MSI. Our data suggest that inherited defects in MSH6 in women with endometrial cancer are relatively common. The minimum estimate of the prevalence of inherited MSH6 mutation in endometrial cancer is 1.6% (7 of 441), comparable with the predicted prevalence for patients with colorectal cancer.

Microsatellite instability, MLH1 promoter methylation, and loss of mismatch repair in endometrial cancer and concomitant atypical hyperplasia

OBJECTIVE

MLH1 methylation is associated with the microsatellite instability (MSI) phenotype in endometrial cancer and atypical endometrial hyperplasia, a premalignant precursor to carcinoma. The observation that methylation is also seen in atypical endometrial hyperplasia without MSI suggests that methylation is an early event in endometrial tumorigenesis. Our objective was to determine if methylation is always present in MSI-positive atypical hyperplasia concomitant with MSI-positive, methylation-positive carcinoma.

METHODS

We used laser capture microdissection to study MLH1 methylation and MSI in a large series of endometrial cancer cases that had previously been shown to have methylation and the MSI-high (MSI-H) phenotype. We resampled areas of carcinoma from 27 patients along with 51 foci of concomitant atypical endometrial hyperplasia.

RESULTS

Consistent with previous reports, we saw MLH1 methylation in areas of atypical endometrial hyperplasia that did not show MSI. In addition, we noted that 18% of the MSI-H atypical endometrial hyperplasia DNAs lacked methylation of critical cytosines in the MLH1 promoter. Immunohistochemistry studies showed that these MSI-H unmethylated foci of atypical endometrial hyperplasia failed to express MLH1, as did regions of simple hyperplasia.

CONCLUSION

Methylation of the MLH1 promoter is an early event in endometrial tumorigenesis. Given that not all MSI-positive tissues had methylation at cytosines -229 and -231, it appears that methylation may not be required for MLH1 silencing and loss of mismatch repair.