MLH1 promoter hypermethylation: are you absolutely sure about the absence of MLH1 germline mutation? About a new case

Testing region selection and prognostic analysis of MLH1 promoter methylation in colorectal cancer in China

Background

MLH1 promoter methylation analysis is recommended in screening for Lynch syndrome (LS) in patients with MLH1-deficient colorectal cancer (CRC). The study aims to identify specific methylation regions in the MLH1 promoter and to evaluate the clinicopathologic characteristics of and prognosis for patients with MLH1 methylation.

Methods

A total of 580 CRC cases were included. The DNA mismatch repair (MMR) protein expression was assessed by using immunohistochemistry (IHC). The methylation status of the Regions A, B, C, D, and E in the MLH1 promoter was tested by using bisulfite sequencing PCR. The specificities of the five regions were calculated. Associations between MLH1 methylation and clinicopathologic characteristics were evaluated. Kaplan-Meier analyses for overall survival (OS) were carried out.

Results

In 580 CRC cases, the specificities of the methylation test in Regions D and E were both 97.8%. In the MLH1-deficient CRCs, the frequencies of MLH1 methylation and BRAFV600E mutation were 52.6% and 14.6%, respectively; BRAFV600E mutation occurred in 27.7% of patients with MLH1-methylated CRC. In the MMR-deficient patients, compared with MLH1 unmethylation, MLH1 methylation was more common in patients who were aged ≥50 years, female, had no family history of LS-related tumors, and had tumors located at the right colon. In the MMR-deficient patients, the MLH1-methylated cases had lower OS rates than the unmethylated cases with a family history of LS-related tumors (P = 0.047).

Conclusions

Regions D and E in the MLH1 promoter are recommended for determining the MLH1 methylation status in screening for LS in MLH1-deficient CRC. In MMR-deficient patients, the MLH1-methylated cases had a worse OS than the unmethylated cases with a family history of LS-related cancer.

MLH1 Promotor Hypermethylation in Colorectal and Endometrial Carcinomas from Patients with Lynch Syndrome

Screening for Lynch syndrome (LS) in colorectal cancer (CRC) and endometrial cancer patients generally involves immunohistochemical staining of the mismatch repair (MMR) proteins. In case of MLH1 protein loss, MLH1 promotor hypermethylation (MLH1-PM) testing is performed to indirectly distinguish the constitutional MLH1 variants from somatic epimutations. Recently, multiple studies have reported that MLH1-PM and pathogenic constitutional MMR variants are not mutually exclusive. This study describes 6 new and 86 previously reported MLH1-PM CRCs or endometrial cancers in LS patients. Of these, methylation of the MLH1 gene promotor C region was reported in 30 MLH1, 6 MSH2, 6 MSH6, and 3 PMS2 variant carriers at a median age at diagnosis of 48.5 years [interquartile range (IQR), 39-56.75 years], 39 years (IQR, 29-51 years), 58 years (IQR, 53.5-67 years), and 68 years (IQR, 65.6-68.5 years), respectively. For 31 MLH1-PM CRCs in LS patients from the literature, only the B region of the MLH1 gene promotor was tested, whereas for 13 cases in the literature the tested region was not specified. Collectively, these data indicate that a diagnosis of LS should not be excluded when MLH1-PM is detected. Clinicians should carefully consider whether follow-up genetic MMR gene testing should be offered, with age <60 to 70 years and/or a positive family history among other factors being suggestive for a potential constitutional MMR gene defect.

Mismatch Repair and Microsatellite Instability Testing for Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy: Guideline From the College of American Pathologists in Collaboration With the Association for Molecular Pathology and Fight Colorectal Cancer

CONTEXT.—

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy for patients with advanced solid tumors that have DNA mismatch repair defects or high levels of microsatellite instability; however, the FDA provided no guidance on which specific clinical assays should be used to determine mismatch repair status.

OBJECTIVE.—

To develop an evidence-based guideline to identify the optimal clinical laboratory test to identify defects in DNA mismatch repair in patients with solid tumor malignancies who are being considered for immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy.

DESIGN.—

The College of American Pathologists convened an expert panel to perform a systematic review of the literature and develop recommendations. Using the National Academy of Medicine-endorsed Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach, the recommendations were derived from available evidence, strength of that evidence, open comment feedback, and expert panel consensus. Mismatch repair immunohistochemistry, microsatellite instability derived from both polymerase chain reaction and next-generation sequencing, and tumor mutation burden derived from large panel next-generation sequencing were within scope.

RESULTS.—

Six recommendations and 3 good practice statements were developed. More evidence and evidence of higher quality were identified for colorectal cancer and other cancers of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract than for cancers arising outside the GI tract.

CONCLUSIONS.—

An optimal assay depends on cancer type. For most cancer types outside of the GI tract and the endometrium, there was insufficient published evidence to recommend a specific clinical assay. Absent published evidence, immunohistochemistry is an acceptable approach readily available in most clinical laboratories.

MLH1/PMS2-deficient Endometrial Carcinomas in a Universally Screened Population: MLH1 Hypermethylation and Germline Mutation Status

MLH1/PMS2 loss due to epigenetic hypermethylation of the MLH1 promoter is the most common cause of mismatch repair deficiency in endometrial carcinoma, and typically provides reassurance against an associated germline mutation. To further characterize the genetic features of MLH1/PMS2-deficient endometrial cancers, the departmental database was searched for cases with dual MLH1/PMS2 loss and retained MSH2/6 expression which underwent MLH1 hypermethylation testing. Genetic testing results were obtained when available. One hundred seventeen endometrial cancers met inclusion criteria: 100 (85%) were MLH1-hypermethylated, 3 (3%) were low-level/borderline, 7 (6%) were nonmethylated, and 7 (6%) were insufficient for testing. Sixteen cases (12 MLH1-hypermethylated, 3 nonmethylated, and 1 insufficient for testing) underwent germline testing, 6 of which (37.5%) demonstrated germline variants of unknown significance (VUS) (MSH6, PMS2, POLD1, BRIP1, RAD51D, CHEK2) but no known deleterious mutations. Notably, however, the patients harboring the MSH6 and PMS2 germline VUS had clinical features concerning for Lynch syndrome. One nonmethylated, germline-normal case underwent somatic tumor testing, and demonstrated a somatic MLH1 mutation. In summary, MLH1-hypermethylation accounts for the vast majority of MLH1/PMS2-deficient cancers in a universally screened population, although MLH1 somatic and germline mutations can occur. Occasionally, patients with MLH1-hypermethlated tumors also bear germline VUS in other mismatch repair genes as well as genes implicated in other hereditary cancer syndromes, but their clinical relevance is unclear. Family and personal cancer histories must always be evaluated to determine the need for germline testing in women with loss of MLH1/PMS2, even in the setting of hypermethylation.

Role of Tumor Mutation Burden Analysis in Detecting Lynch Syndrome in Precision Medicine: Analysis of 2,501 Japanese Cancer Patients

BACKGROUND

Tumor mutation burden (TMB) is the total exonic mutation count per megabase of tumor DNA. Recent advances in precision medicine occasionally detect Lynch syndrome (LS) by germline sequencing for mismatch-repair (g.MMR) genes but not using TMB. The current study analyzes the utility of TMB in detecting LS.

METHODS

Whole-exome sequencing (ion-semiconductor sequencing) was performed for somatic and germline DNA from 2,501 various cancer patients to detect TMB and g.MMR sequencing. MMR IHC was conducted when high TMB (≥10) was detected in LS-related cancers with an additional condition of wild-type BRAF in colorectal cancers. Target sequencing and multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA) were further performed for g.MMR genes in MMR-deficient cancers (TMB-based g.MMR target sequencing). We compared universal sequencing and TMB-based target sequencing in their sensitivity for detecting LS.

RESULTS

LS was detected in 16 (0.6%) of the 2,501 patients: 1.1% (9/826) of colorectal cancer patients, 16.2% (6/37) of endometrial cancer patients, and 14.3% (1/7) of small intestine cancer patients. TMB-based g.MMR target sequencing (81.3%) showed superior sensitivity for detecting LS than universal g.MMR sequencing (56.3%; P = 0.127) but missed 3 LS patients (1 with a low-TMB cancer, 1 with a BRAF-mutant colorectal cancer, and 1 with an MMR-proficient cancer). Ion-semiconductor sequencing could detect single-nucleotide substitutions but not large deletions. POL-mutated cancers showed extremely high TMBs (48.4-749.2).

CONCLUSIONS

g.MMR target sequencing, combined with TMB, somatic BRAF mutation, and MMR IHC is an effective strategy for detecting LS.

IMPACT

TMB can be a biomarker for detecting LS in precision medicine.